Quick note on the budget signing

Earlier today, Governor Healey signed the FY24 state budget, which means, at long last, we have a state budget (more than a month into the new fiscal year). 

She did exercise her veto power on a few accounts that involve K-12 education, as follows: 

• Civics Education Trust fund cut by by $1M to $1.5M 
• $300K in earmarks in EL & Literacy programs (funded at $5,366,731)
• $100K from AP math & science (thus funded at $3,292,809)
• $5,601,240 from circuit breaker, which is the FY23 carryover that was in the language (thus making it $ 498,972,361)

On that last, the Governor cites the $75M in the FY23 supplemental budget, but that last is extraordinary relief. Regardless, the line is fully funded.  

All of the above are found here. 

There are not, as yet, new Ch. 70 spreadsheets, but the cherry sheets are updated. 

FY22 Worcester School Committee budget deliberation: round 1

 writing these up later for both my and your use

The budget is online here. The schedule of accounts we're using is here. My memo to my colleagues is here.

January Board of Ed: opening comments

 The agenda is here; the video will be here.

updating as we go

coming in late as the initial broadcast had no sound...missed several rounds of public testimony...and again...and now?

public testimony on ACCESS testimony: 
requesting suspension of ACCESS and MCAS
"why are we worrying about a test when our children are struggling with isolation"
"poor allocation of our resources"
"I really have no sensible answer" for why you're doing this now
only widening gaps, measuring who has had access to the internet
"we ask was it worth it"
"you keep asking us to make it worth, but is it worth it?"
find a different way to make it work without high stakes testing

regional vocational schools admission
Cabral: superintendent of Taunton
our responsibility to advocate for our students and our families
advocate for our children
speaks of his own family history, parents directing to access to education
admission denies some students access to vocational schools
once denied admission, they have little chance to transfer later
"many at risk students lose interest in education, because the curriculum does not seem to have" real world application
urge those with a voice in authority to create systemic changes
"should not be a one-time opportunity or a decision made by a 13 year old in 8th grade"
should not forget those new to our country
create greater opportunity for students to access opportunities and to gain them if they were denied access
"leaves comprehensive schools at the mercy of regional vocational schools"
quotes student in Taunton High in their drafting program: hoping internship with lead to full time employment

NAACP: Juan Cofield
education has been a central concern of NAACP "almost from its inception"
"in support of a change in admission policy of the voke schools" for equal access of these schools to students in the Commonwealth
students of color represent a significantly smaller number of students enrolled
"dramatic underrepresentation" of students of color in regional voke schools
"there must be an open enrollment policy for voke schools"
Constitution of the Commonwealth; 14th amendment on equal access
"should be a function of capacity" rather than the chance of the students getting in 
"currently exclusionary admission policy practice is just simply illegal and it discrimates against protected classes...it is blatant race-based discrimination"
should require a lottery system for admission for 21-22 school year

Kevin Murray, Mass Advocates for Children
sound went out again
evolution of admission for programs
"has turned these schools into another form of selective admission schools"
Commissioner has attempted to encourage voluntary changes, with no results so far
and he's speaking of some proposed changes but I don't know what those are or what group he's talking about


teacher licensure proposal
speaker: have been a substitute, general curriculum MTEL is all that stands before her
Has taken the MTEL over 20 times and have spent over $1000 on books and prep material
have been to public schools with teachers who never took the exam
"make a necessary change in public education"
lack of diversity in teaching

Chair Katherine Craven: thank Board for participation in anti-racism training
will follow up with second round in spring
Amanda Fernández on teacher diversity: except she can't hear the meeting
committee met last month and will continue to meet quarterly
Updates on current work
new potential areas of work; financial support for college students, other opportunities
Matt Hills being added to the Commissioner's review committee
Evidence-based policymaking; adopted with Board of Higher Ed
West: at Feb. 1 meeting with discuss progress on student longitudual data system

Secretary Peyser: who I think is talking about finance but is fading in and out
"vast majority of" federal resources still available "has not been drawn down"
"suggests our schools and districts are going to be going into FY22 in pretty good shape"
references Globe article on reading: incumbent on schools to provide interventions
"the early years are critical for building reading skills"
"very hard to recover" if students don't build reading skills early

Riley: announcement of guidance counselor award
dyslexia guidance
STEM Advanced Placement access opportunity

Worcester School Committee FY21 budget hearing

Public comment:

A quick note on reconsideration

for Worcester watchers--as our vote from two weeks ago striking the requirement to take the AP test to get AP-level credit in the GPA is back on Thursday's agenda--but also in general; as I've said before, it was Mr. O'Connell who taught me to know the rules: 

A motion to "reconsider" a vote is just what it says: it asks the public body if they want to consider again what they have already voted.

• A "yes" vote to reconsideration means "yes, let's vote that again."
• A "no" vote to reconsideration means "no, let's stay with the vote we already cast."

If the "yes" votes succeed, the item is taken up again, and the members of the body then vote whatever the item was.
If the "no" votes succeed, the item goes forward as originally voted.

In most committees, only those who cast a "yes" vote can make a motion to reconsider and it must be done within the same meeting.
In Worcester, any member can file for reconsideration of a vote within 48 business hours of a meeting. They are to give the reason for doing so. It then appears as the first item on the following agenda.
As a result, no vote in Worcester is official until 48 business hours after the meeting.
In Worcester, this is sometimes staved off--and votes go through right away--by voting reconsideration at the same meeting, as an item can only be reconsidered once.

Thus if you are watching the AP item for Worcester for Thursday:

• if your hope is that the requirement for testing is waived for this year, you're looking for a "no" vote on reconsideration (and that's it; the vote from two weeks ago is the vote).
• if your hope is that the requirement of testing is reinstated for this year, you're looking for a "yes" vote on reconsideration followed by a "no" vote on the actual motion. 

Got it?

Worcester School Committee meets (remotely) and suspends the requirement that students in AP courses take the AP exam for this year

And the agenda is here. Note the substantial executive session, and you can read the Joint Statement from the EAW and WPS admin over here.

I'll write more later, but just to push this out:
Tonight, the Worcester School Committee voted 5-2 to suspend the Worcester requirement that students take the A.P. exam to get A.P. credit. In pure policy terms, we struck the final two sentences from the section entitled "Advanced Placement exams" from page 77 of the student handbook:

Advanced Placement Exams
Students are responsible for costs for Advanced Placement Exams. The cost for one Advanced Placement Exam is $90.00. Scholarships and reduced fees are available for eligible students. School guidance counselors can provide additional information. Students must take the Advanced Placement Examination in their course in order to receive Advanced Placement credit for the course. Students who do not take the Advanced Placement Examination, but pass the course, shall receive honors credit for the course.

...like so.

Note that the next section, which spells out how A.P. level courses count for more in calculating student G.P.A. REMAINS IN EFFECT.

And big h/t to our student rep Kwaku Nyarko, who eloquently spoke of what it is like to be taking A.P. courses right now; this isn't what students signed up for.

more on the meeting later!
Other things of note:

• In response to Miss Biancheria's items on third quarter grades and on seniors, there was a fairly extensive conversation around where we stand (I'll pull up the video and find the part where that discussion happened). As has been stated elsewhere, the third quarter effectively closed March 13; students will receive numerical grades for that quarter (and report cards were filled out by yesterday; they're coming). The state's guidance for new work has been feedback for all students, pass/fail with grace for secondary students; my sense is that what this looks like exactly was still being sorted out.
  Do note that the superintendent both said that she doesn't expect regular school to resume this year, and sketched out some of what is envisioned for graduations. 
• In response to items from both Ms. McCullough and Mrs. Clancey, the administration did give some updates on what contact with families, particularly for students with IEPs and other needs have been. Somewhat worryingly, the district doesn't plan to do IEP meetings during this time. There is more information on this coming, as well. 
• I had asked about discontinuing school building projects during the pandemic; it was pretty clear that this wouldn't pass, so I withdrew the item, and then the City Manager stopped the building projects the next day.
• In response to items both Mrs. Clancey and I had filed, Mr. Allen ran through what the district is paying for, as, under MGL Ch. 41, sec. 56, we cannot pay for services not received. Employees, of course, are being paid. The collaborative, as it's considered an extension of the district; out of district tuition for students also is being paid, under the understanding services are still being provided. For in-district transportation, the guidance was that districts should be negotiating with their transportation providers. Worcester has done so, and is paying Durham 77% of the contractual rate under a written agreement that A. employees are to be paid and B. the buses are to be available as needed (they have, at this point, provided some transportation to those at the homeless shelters). That's saving $85,000 a week, but costing $53,000 a day. 

Worcester Public Schools COVID-19 FAQ

An updating post of questions, queries, and the best information I have; please also note the Massachusetts FAQ for further information

You're reading it right: Classical was a different building, and
what's now the administration building opened as English High.

The Worcester schools are closed. What now?
The schools have all been thoroughly cleaned since they were closed last week.
If you are staff, you can report to school today from 8-12 to retrieve anything you need, including class pets (!), plants, food, and your Chromebook.
If you are a student, you can report to school from 10-6 tomorrow to retrieve anything you need from school (and please take any food out of your lockers!).
If a student has medication at school, that can be picked up from the nurse from 8-12 today or from 10-6 tomorrow. Only parents can collect controlled substances, though students over 12 can get their epipens, insulin, and inhalers.

But aren't we supposed to be staying apart?
Yes, which is why we need all those coming to be FOCUSED: get in, get what you need, and get out. No stopping to catch up, as much as it is a temptation.

What if kids are sick? May they designate someone to do it for them?
Yes, please do!

What if I can't get my stuff?
The schools will be locked and it will be locked in a building with no one in it but the custodial staff.

Do I have to go?
No, if you don't need anything from school, you don't have to go. Packets will be mailed to students who don't come to their schools on Tuesday. If you don't need to come DO NOT COME! STAY HOME! PLEASE!

What then? 
The schools again will be thoroughly cleaned, and then they will be closed to all but custodial staff.

I heard that...
Okay, hold up: Worcester gossips like a small town. Please let's be very careful about what we're hearing and from whom. The City is holding daily press briefings which are being streamed online, and every elected official I know is scrambling to get as much accurate information out as possible. Please, don't pass along "I heard that" stuff on social media. Check it.

Okay, what I heard is that the Worcester Public Schools have a person associated with the schools with a positive test.
No. We are still waiting for the results of the tests of those associated with North High and Chandler Magnet as of Monday morning.
UPDATE: as announced by City Manager Ed Augustus this afternoon, those three results are back and they are NEGATIVE

What if they come back positive?
First, we'd be the third or fourth district in Massachusetts to have a positive test. Second, it would trigger a tracing of all those with whom those who tested positive have been in contact, so YES, families would be informed and given further direction.

What about learning?
Excellent question!
First, please note that Massachusetts, as a state, has no statewide provision for remote learning. There is a small, now cancelled, pilot of remote learning, mostly in Franklin County around snow days. There are also two virtual schools. But K-12 public education in Massachusetts CANNOT simply move online.
Thus whatever is given are resources for learning, not assigned work. The WPS website has a section for this, and packets are being sent home to all students, as well, as we understand not all families have online access, and it shouldn't be a priority as all else is being dealt with.

What counts?
Yesterday, principals were told that any work assigned before March 12 will count. The quarter is scheduled to end April 3, which is still true.

Do we have to make up these days?
No. The state has said that schools must go through their scheduled 185th day; as Worcester has already used five snow days, June 17th remains our last day.

Are we going to go back on April 6?
We don't know. Told you'd I'd give you the best information I have. It's important to note that the superintendent--and most superintendents who announced closures!--said "at least" April 6, and if you look at the banner on our website, it says that as well.

Are we going to go back at all?
We don't know. The CDC has now said that closures of eight weeks or more may be most effective in mitigation.

What about MCAS?
We don't know yet. The federal government is allowing states to apply for a waiver for the testing requirement under ESSA. We do not know if Massachusetts has applied, and they're not saying. If Massachusetts does apply and is granted such a waiver, the Legislature would also need to act, because our requirement is written into state law.
As the superintendent noted in the paper, however, we aren't going to be in school on March 24 for the 10th grade ELA, so something will need to change.

What about SATs? APs?
We don't know yet. Many testing locations across Massachusetts were closed Saturday, cancelling SATs. The College Board has now cancelled the May 2 SAT.
On APs, the College Board so far has offered to extend the testing dates, but it's going to depend on how long schools are closed.

Are people being paid?
All full year, school year employees of the Worcester Public Schools are being paid. This includes hourly employees and long-term subs (and yes, even crossing guards!). Per administration, "The Worcester Public Schools intend to treat these days as if school is in session and will continue to pay employees as if days are worked. Given that these are paid days, you may be expected to conduct official work, be assigned to work onsite, or complete professional development on these days."
And yes, payroll will keep working, though they're moving to some of that to being remotely done. Also, note that those who pick up checks at DAB usually are now having them mailed to their homes.

What about feeding kids?
Yes, we are! All those under 18 in Worcester can show up at any of the following sites to get a weekday breakfast and lunch:

Have further questions? Comment, email, or call! 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, September 5

You can find the agenda here.
Should you be wondering if the Worcester Educational Collaborative's weekly question for candidates makes any difference at all, you might go read this week's responses on balancing constituent needs and the work of the committee, which was published Tuesday, August 27, and then look at how many agenda items that reflect challengers' concerns were filed on Wednesday, August 28.
Right. So.

There is no report of the superintendent.
As I noted in my own response to WEC's question, there is again an enormous number of recognitions and appreciations.
There are some beginning of the year appointments.

There's a response to the item asking about the teaching of cursive in the Worcester Public Schools; this is one of the better responses I've seen in some time, as it cites the state standards, reviews where the state is going, lays out where the district is and plans to be, and brings it home with research. 

There's a question about mold at Columbus Park (see above on filing items that should simply be referred to administration for solution).

There's a one page request for acceptance for an $80,000 security grant upon which the only description is "locks and cameras" with program location "the Worcester Public Schools." That's a lot of money to spend so vaguely.

There's likewise a one page request for acceptance of an innovation pathways grant of $28,683, and...I have no idea what it is being spent on, as here's what it says:

• To support the development of new and effective strategies to scale high-quality career pathways, and significantly expand student access to, participation in, and successful completion of pathways that culminate in meantiful postsecondary and workforce credentials
• To provide participating students with supportive, rigorous academic experiences and career development education relevant to their next stepss after high school
• To enhance a student's ability to gain awareness and prepardness of future employment opportunities

I mean, it's the innovation pathways, so it has stuff to do with getting kids to work, but what is the $28K going to?

xkcd 1860: Communicating

There's likewise a one page request for acceptance for the $116,250 21st Century Exemplar program which is going to Burncoat Middle "to provide activities rooted in project based learning practices that were developed around the need for enhanced literacy programming." So the funding buys...what?

Lest you think I'm being overly particular, I know for a fact that the district had to supply significantly more information than this to the state to get the grant, and the district within recent memory was reporting enough information to know where the money was actually going on grants.

Miss McCullough is asking for a report on the JumpStart orientation programs at the secondary schools. I assume, incidentally, that there will at some point be a report of the superintendent on back to school?

The usual settling up from the prior fiscal year is on here without a backup at this point; it'll be referred to Finance and Operations.

The auditors are coming! The reports aren't attached; this will go to Finance and Operations, too.

Mr. Monfredo thinks there should be:

half day professional development for staff in light of the training provided to principals that dealt with SEL, the impact of homelessness and foster children and on disciplinary alternatives.

Just a reminder that professional development time in the Worcester Public Schools is very, very limited.

Mr. Monfredo also offers this:

Request that the Administration continue its collaborative work with various agencies in dealing with the needs of homeless and foster children and consider reviewing the Cincinnati model entitled “Kids in School Rule.”

Yes, that is really a "keep doing what you're doing" item.

There's a request to pay a prior fiscal year item $2,323.00 to CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP for the student activities account audit which is a little odd.

Mr. O'Connell is coming in with two alternative district policies banning cell phones in different ways, both of which made the rounds of the news this summer: San Mateo and Crestwood. It's always interesting to me which ones get picked; one could just have easily cited Stoughton's: 

Stoughton High School Student Handbook changes for 2019-2020 regarding the Electronic Device Policy.

Parents and guardians please review this policy below with your child & encourage responsible and appropriate use of electronic devices during the school day. @StoughtonPS pic.twitter.com/plisODjFt1

— Alan Bontya (@BlackKnightsAP) August 29, 2019

Note also that, so long as the district both requires technology to complete work and does not provide said technology, having a cell phone ban is literally barring students from doing their work, or requiring that they violate district policy to do so.

The Committee is requested to accept donations:
– $67.55 from a donor to the Worcester Public Schools
– $100.00 from a donor to the Patricia Falcone Memorial Scholarship
– $3,820.00 from Worcester Area Mission Society for the Summer Cubs Program held at Woodland Academy

Mr. O'Connell has put the updated superintendent rubric on the agenda for consideration; note that the redraft is only for superintendents, not for district administrators as on the agenda.

The Committee is also being asked to accept (surely we could even just group these together?) the Comprehensive School Health grant for $200,000. While the backup on this one is of no more use than any of the other grants on the agenda, luckily we know from the FY20 budget what this grant is going for: "trauma informed teams" that would go to schools in most need (that's on page 262). More specifics about how many positions are being hired should be included here, however.

Mr. O'Connell (on August 28) suggests that the School Committee should establish goals for itself. Note that during Mr. O'Connell's extensive tenure, I do not believe he has ever before made this proposal.
...and wants to review the siting of Doherty (citing the city charter, which I don't think is going to carry weight with the MSBA).
...and wants to send leftover food home with kids (as you no doubt saw on Facebook this summer).
...and wants to know when site councils are meeting (as he does this one time each year; it does not get connected to goals or evaluation at any point).


Mr. Comparetto asks for an update on ongoing transportation issues. Note that the Committee was to have the Durham bid and the WPS report on the in-house alternative by now. Keep your eye on the schedule of Finance and Operations meetings, as that report will appear there first. This is the appropriate place to bring your concerns about WPS transportation. I would think it would have to happen before the next full committee meeting on September 19. UPDATE: Note Scott O'Connell's article on this; Finance and Operations expected to meeting 9/1716, with the full committee taking it up 9/19. Again, this is the right place to bring your transportation concerns.

There is another prior year payment of $5,252.25 to Harbor Networks; since there's no backup, we don't know for what, but they do "managed IT services" which leaves more questions than answers, really. 


Mr. Comparetto, on an item co-sponsored by Mr. Foley, Miss McCullough, and Mr. Monfredo (that's interesting) calls for:

Request the establishment of an inclusive and transparent process for selecting and implementing a comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum that is age-appropriate, evidence-based, medically-accurate and LGBTQ inclusive in the Worcester Public Schools.

And yes, the candidates have been asked about that quite a bit.

Miss Biancheria would like a count on Worcester Tech enrollment and applicants; a list of Ch. 74 programs and enrollment; and AP courses, enrollments, and results (they won't be able to do a full list of this as some of the sizes will be too small; FERPA violation); and to "highlight its successes in the STEM/STEAM programs" during a week in October.

There's prior fiscal year payments totalling $7800 going to nurses, which does actually have a backup.

Miss McCullough, no doubt noting the ongoing calls these past weeks for class supply lists, request clear links to such lists, as well as calendars and forms. Might we go a step further and remind all involved that such lists can only always be optional, which is not something I saw emphasized nearly enough? For these to be expected in a district like Worcester is, bluntly, wrong.

And there's an executive session at 6: three collective bargaining sessions and three litigation consultations.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

The agenda is here. There are retirements, thanks, and such.

The report of the superintendent is on English learning. There's a lot to consider here, and I see some flags around partnering with families and perhaps a lack of historical context. Also there's a grant cited here that I can't find. 

Finance and Operations comes back with their second quarter report (including transfers) and their transportation items (no backup on the agenda). If you haven't been in touch with the committee on whatever bus concerns you may have, it would be important to contact them before Thursday.

There is a report back regarding an online gradebook creation: for outside bidders, it would be one time start-up costs of $125,000 plus $185,000. As that's more than one staff person, one has to ask: did anyone look at doing this in-house, as WPS runs most of its data systems in-house at substantial cost savings?

The request for a report on AP's to "include student/parent feedback" is back with two pages of courses, the test costs, the dates students are required to attend...and that's it. No details, no feedback, no plans for it.
It also still leaves out the part where the test is required.

On the other hand, there's a whole four pages on implementation Read Across America Day.
There is a recommendation coming back on a Claremont Academy catchement area.

There a request for reports/reviews on: the 100 Males to College Program; the Doherty building plan; the bus yard at Fremont Street (that would be WPS buses), and bus arrival times (I can't tell if that backup is for schools or for parents); A/C and water in buildings; the MOU with the Worcester Police Department; feminine hygiene products being available free (they are, at the nurse); DEP action at Bright Cleaners (next to Gates Lane); prioritizing homeless students; biweekly listening sessions; strengthening site councils; incorporating more diversity (racial, ethnic and around sexual identity) in history (required under the new state standards); balancing arts/history/etc in early grades; ethics; arts education; a racial equity study; a homebuyer program; a program for IAs to become teachers; increasing recess (admin says they can't go beyond the 30 minutes already required); specific preschool grant funding (already a response: not eligible); and makerspace in school libraries. The last fifteen of those, which is more items than that, are all from Mr. Comparetto. On one agenda.

There's a request the School Committee accept the following donations:
– $25,000.00 from The Hanover Insurance Group Foundation to The Hanover Insurance Academy for the Arts at Burncoat Middle School (I think this is the first one that has come through?)
– $20,000.00 from Digital Federal Credit Union (DCU) to the Worcester Public Schools to be used as scholarships to graduating seniors.

There's an executive session for a grievance, two employee lawsuits, and the lawsuit of the Jane Doe V. Worcester Public Schools (which I might be this case (?), which hasn't gotten a great deal of local press).

No blogging from me: I have a meeting that night! 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, March 7

I know it's confusing, as they just met last week; February does that!
The agenda is here.
There are the usual array of resignations, appointments, and thanks.

The report on the superintendent is on technology (and can we talk about how hard it is to read a scan of a PowerPoint sideways?). Page 21 gets to access, with 2:1 access (planned? I think?) in K-2, 1:1 on carts in 3-6 and in general in 7-12, but the key point there is "funding to be identified." This ties in explicitly with the motion last week to re-examine the cell phone policy; note that with the big push towards technology use in the classrooms but the dearth of actual technology, students are using smartphones in the classroom and for homework. The district absolutely should not be making this push towards use without supplying devices and then punishing students for using the devices they have. Also, it's a relief to see student information staying in house; that gets shockingly expensive quickly, and WPS being able to staff and adapt is a district strength.
I'm a little puzzled by this appearing now, though, as it was one of the goals on which the superintendent was evaluated back in November.

The other item of note is the response of the administration on Advanced Placement courses, and I don't just say this as a parent who has a couple hundred dollars in checks to the high schools here on the desk next to me. While it lists the courses and reports the costs, it doesn't mention two things that are of central import in understanding this in Worcester: the first is how few other options there are at the high schools when it comes to what might otherwise be "honors" or "advanced" courses. Once you get to junior year (and I say this as a parent of kids in two high schools), your options get very, very limited beyond AP (and most students are urged into AP's in any case). The other key part of the contract that has not been mentioned in the backup is this:

The exams--the part that costs money--are not optional; this is a required cost for a course, and the cost of the exams--and the vast majority of the exams, despite the mention, are not covered by grants--is borne by students, in a district in which most of our kids are poor.

There is a response to an item on contractor wages for school construction projects.
There is a request for approval for new courses (these usually go to subcommittee for consideration):

• Acting Character Study Magnet
• Introduction to Networking
• Advanced Acting I Magnet
• Language and Literature Through the Arts
• Advanced Acting II Magnet
• Machine Operations
• Advanced Technical Theater
• Media Arts III
• African American Literature
• Media Arts IV
• American Literature
• Meteorology
• CNA and Health Care Skills
• Musical Theater for Performance Majors
• Comparative Mythology
• Neuropathophysiology and Film
• Construction Techniques and Specifications Course Application
• News and Media Literacy OCPL
• Computer Science Discoveries (For Middle School)
• Personal Financial Literacy OCPL
• Directing I Magnet
• Playwriting Magnet
• Directing II Magnet
• SAT Math Preparation
• Economics
• Shakespeare- Tragedies and Comedies
• Ensemble I Magnet
• Technical Theater II & Design II Magnet
• Ensemble II Magnet
• Theater Lab Acting
• History of Theater Magnet
• Theater Lab technical Theater
• Integrated Dance
• Urban Agriculture and Food Systems
• Introduction to Acting Magnet
• US Government and Politics
• Contemporary World Religions

...which is a lot? Remember that just because it exists, doesn't mean it is offered. 

There is a request that the committee vote to accept:

• a $150K English Learners pathways grant which appears to be for professional development for "bilingual education," if I have waded through the edu-lingo correctly. No word on the link with current programs, including the dual language one.
• a $7540 planning grant for implementation of the updated history and social studies standards 

Mr. O'Connell would like Worcester to participate in Massachusetts State Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (APIB) Fee Subsidy Program  (which...doesn't seem to exist? I can't find this anywhere.).

There is an executive session posted for two grievances, collective bargaining with IAs, bus monitors, plumbers/steamfitters, and tradesmen, and contract negotiations with the superintendent. 

On AP, "advanced coursework," and how budget and policy can't be separated

While I tweeted out some of this yesterday, I wanted to talk some more about this article from Scott O'Connell on Worcester's "advanced coursework" numbers.

Let's first acknowledge that much of the point of having items included in the state accountability system is to have districts have just this discussion ('though it would be useful for the discussion to take place at actual school committee meetings, not only the pages of the local paper). The addition of access to advanced coursework recognizes the long history of access to such coursework being inequitable, with students of color, those whose first language is one other than English, those who are poor, being much less likely to have access to such courses and to take such courses in high school. This is part of the report for a reason: subgroup data is what needs to be focused on here.

It's also important to note that while both international baccalaureate and advanced placement courses are included in these numbers, that isn't all. The state's glossary defines it as:

This indicator is reported as the percentage of all students enrolled in 11th and 12th grade that achieve a passing score in at least one advanced course, including but not limited to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), dual enrollment for credit, and other selected rigorous mathematics and science courses.

The "rigorous mathematics and science courses" (a limit which makes this humanities person bristle: figure out how to include humanities on that one, DESE!) naturally includes a significant number of courses that are neither AP or IB (it basically includes all math after algebra II, for example; the full list, downloaded from DESE, is here). Such courses "largely fall[ing]" within AP and IB is too sweeping a statement.

It is absolutely the case, though, that Worcester has made a major push in recent years not only to expand AP courses, but to push more kids into them, and I use that verb advisedly. There have been and continue to be open questions around the actual benefits to students of advanced placement courses, and this is something Worcester--and most districts--haven't addressed in any way.

In terms of access, the story is in the subgroups, and the article calls that out:

Worcester’s advanced course-completion numbers were not equal across student subgroups and schools. White (62 percent) and black (61 percent) students, for instance, had higher rates then [sic] Latino (49 percent) students. Economically disadvantaged students (52 percent), high needs students (51 percent), and English language learners (40 percent) also completed advanced classes at a lower rate than the district average.

You can find that data here (scroll down). You can also compare it to the prior year (which makes it look like something weird was going on last year with the students with disabilities subgroup), though a single year change may not be much to go on. This does show, however, what is improving, what is not, and by how much; you don't, as with economically disadvantaged students, want to see numbers getting smaller.

The category including courses beyond AP, however, does make the numbers that much more sobering: only 58% of the entire student body received a passing grade in ANY advanced coursework last year? That's troubling.

The article misses one important piece of information around AP access in Worcester, however; it's this, from the Advanced Placement policy in the student handbook (p. 68 in the PDF):

Students are responsible for costs for Advanced Placement Exams. The cost for one Advanced Placement Exam is $90.00. Scholarships and reduced fees are available for eligible students. School guidance counselors can provide additional information. Students must take the Advanced Placement Examination in their course in order to receive Advanced Placement credit for the course. Students who do not take the Advanced Placement Examination, but pass the course, shall receive honors credit for the course

Students are responsible for the costs of the exams; each exam costs $90. The fee has only been waived for some of the math and science courses in recent years; students have to pay $90 for each exam. Those eligible for free and reduced lunch--a form that is no longer filled out in Worcester under community eligiblity--are assessed half price.
Maybe $50 doesn't sound like a lot to you. Maybe you're not among the majority of WPS students living in poverty, who somehow have to come up with $50 for every single advanced placement course they take in high school.
Because Worcester doesn't fund the test, and because the policy incentivizes taking the test, the policy creates an inequity the budget doesn't fix. The inequity of one only furthers the inequity of the other.

And why does the AP/honors distinction matter? Because an A in an AP course counts as a 5 in a GPA, while an A in an honors course counts as a 4.
I'd suggest that asking our valedictorians how much they've had to pay in exam fees would be a good question around equity in access. Only those who can afford the fee can afford to have particularly high GPAs in Worcester.
And only those who can afford to pay can take AP courses at all in Worcester.

Summer Worcester schools questions

Questions that have floated through my head this summer...

• Are we ever going to find out if Hanover really did make a donation to the much-heralded "gifted" middle school program at Burncoat? It hasn't shown up anywhere that I have seen. How much was it and what was it spent on? And was it a one time thing?
• Speaking of donations, there was much ado, of course, around how the proposed strategic plan was not done within the Worcester Public Schools. The moment it was proposed, though, it became a donated service, and that donated service has a value. We ought to be seeing a public donation come through.
• Worcester was among the districts announced this week as receiving part of the state early college high school grant. This is good (particularly, if you read that release, that the students are going to be supported), but this is hardly alone in college things offered to high school students in Worcester. Having seen this at close hand, Worcester really needs a better central (open all summer) clearinghouse for this information, which specifically spells out how it works, who it's for, how many kids can do it, how much it costs, and so forth. There are opportunities lost by those who can't chase around from office to office for information, and guidance offices are very uneven.
• This article today on how we really don't know what AP courses are doing to and for students reminded me again of how Worcester has totally put all of its eggs in the AP basket, and has done so while not funding the AP tests and not know what it does to students long-term. 
• And speaking of things we aren't thinking long term about, this massive article on the fear-based industry of school security reminds me that lack of basis for Worcester's training has never been adequently explained or dealt with. 
• I mentioned last year that after having years of continued insistence by some members of the Worcester School Committee that there had to be public involvement in the process of hiring principals, those members seemed not to care anymore. Add to that now multiple rounds of postings for schools and lack of applicants, something which--if you follow school districts--is not happening elsewhere. This is a basic management function of the superintendency, and it's concerning to see the holes in school-based leadership. 
• I generally don't opine on logos--my tastes run to simple, time-worn, clearly labelled, non-trendy--but the possible issues over the proposed change in Worcester are something I can appreciate, as someone who taught Shakespeare to high school students. Note that it was clear from the presentation given to the School Committee in July that this was a professional consultant job, so let's not put the kids in the middle of it. That would be a good thing to have  a price tag on, too, as I can't figure out where in the budget they put it. 
• I know we're not concerned with school levels anymore, but has anyone gotten an update on if Elm Park Community is ever going to get out of Level 4? All of Worcester's prior experiences with Level 4 have been successfully completed much more quickly than this.
• And since we aren't going to worry about levels anymore, what are the chances we can hear something about what the new acccountability system is going to look like here? Beyond, one imagines, continuing to send parents charts on attendence, is there going to be any shift in emphasis? Any changes?

You didn't hear it from me, but the high school schedules are up (I'm told the posted middle school schedules aren't necessarily final), and if you google your bus route, you just might find it. 

As always, if I get any answers, I'll let you know! 

Worcester Public Schools Strategic Planning Public Session

Posting here from Doherty Memorial where we have maybe fifty people (of which maybe ten or fifteen are teachers? I think?). Offhand, I see John Monfredo and Dante Comparetto (both of next year's School Committee) and Matt Wally (incoming D5 City Councilor), a few principals...
I'm hearing the EAW moved the House of Delegates meeting here.
I'm also hearing that the agenda is 2/3rds being talked at, 1/3rd being listened to...

Board of Ed for December: accountability system

Wulfson: why we're doing this work
believe state has an obligation to identify schools in need of intervention and to work with those schools
1800 schools in the Commonwealth and most are doing a really good job
believe we have an obligation to identify and shine a spotlight on the schools that are doing really well
believe we have an obligation to share information with parents
believe we have an obligation to provide information to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth
required by both federal and state law to hold districts accountable and report on their performance

Worcester schools to get $1.1M from free cash (and some advanced placement finance stuff)

The T&G reports today that part of the Worcester City Council's consideration of free cash tomorrow night is a proposed allocation of $1.1 million to the Worcester Public Schools. This follows up on the report from mid-November's Finance and Operations that FY18 thus far has a $1.6 million gap in the first quarter report.
Having now listened to the meeting, it seems that maybe the most relevant comment on this didn't make the article; at about 15 minutes in, you can hear Mr. Allen say the following:

"We have been having ongoing discussions with the City Manager and the City CFO, and we hope and expect some discussions through either the free cash process or through some supplemental appropriation to assist us in that regard so we can balance the FY18 budget."

Thus this comment:

“We continue to work with the city manager on his recommendation to the City Council” to provide supplemental funding or some other solution to the district’s deficit, Mr. Allen said at Monday’s meeting of the School Committee’s Finance and Operations Standing Committee. 
 Should the city not be able to fill the gap, he said, “we’ll figure it out, one way or another.”

...is less prophetic than it appeared in print, perhaps. 
The allocation (which, despite the tone of the City Manager's report, will have to be done by the School Committee) is proposed to be directed to additional staffing and special education tuition. Note that while $1.6 million is a lot of money, adjustment of such size are not completely unknown. Thus the City Manager's comment today:

“Without this additional appropriation, the Worcester public schools will need to make mid-year budget cuts of $2.2 million in order to close the current gap with only half of the fiscal year remaining,” he added. 

...looks a little like overkill.

Also, h/t to Donna Colorio for bringing up the still-waiting-on-the-state question of funding for the students who have come from Puerto Rico. 

For Net School Spending watchers, that's getting us close to 1% over, by the back of my envelope.


Unfortunately, the Finance and Operations subcommittee section of the website is down, meaning we can't reference the quarterly report. In listening to the meeting, however, I'm still puzzling over what Worcester's doing on AP tests. The most recent T&G article lauding Worcester's expansion says this:
Despite Worcester promoting the AP program, it ran into a hitch last school year when a federal subsidy that helped pay the cost of poorer students’ tests ended suddenly.
The school system ended up paying for affected students’ exams – about $80,000 worth of fees, school officials said in the spring – with the expectation that some form of government assistance would become available to cover the bill from the College Board, which administers the AP. According to a recent memo from the finance department to the School Committee’s Finance and Operations Standing Committee, the district did end up receiving nearly $300,000 in Title IV federal aid that it had not budgeted and that will go toward AP exam fees. 
 “We were able to pay our bill,” Ms. Binienda said, as well as put some money toward next year’s test fees.

At about minute 16, Mr. Allen references the article, but that's it. 
Here's the thing: as Worcester expanded advanced placement exams, Worcester also added a policy saying that if students took the class, they also were required to take the exam. This was less of an issue when we had a state-administered grant that covered the fees for all kids who got free and reduced lunch AND we knew who got free and reduced lunch.

Now, however, we've had a vast expansion in advanced placement across the district; kids are pushed (frankly, to the determent of their greater interests) to pack as many AP's into their schedules as possible. Parents and students are NOT, at the time of sign-ups, told or reminded of the policy requiring the test. AND the state grant is gone AND students no longer sign up for free and reduced lunch.
So what happens? If you have a kid in an AP class, in mid-November--long past time when kids could drop or add classes--a form came home that said this:

"Please be aware that AP courses are equivalent to courses taught at colleges. If you are enrolled in an AP course, you are REQUIRED to take the AP Exam and pay the due fees. In order to qualify for a fee reduction for the AP exam cost, parent/guardian must first submit The Fee Reduction Worksheet in order to verify household income. If you qualify for Free/Reduced lunch you will received a reduction of the total fees."

At the bottom of the form, it was note that full price exams are $95; the reduced fee is $59. 
No student in Worcester qualifies for free or reduced lunch anymore, nor have they in years, as the entire district is covered under Community Eligibility. Thus few in Worcester would know the standards.
At no point are parents told how to access this worksheet.
Even if your family qualifies, it's still $59 per test per student. 
And families are told this in NOVEMBER.

Yes, I know all this because I have kids in AP classes, but, no, the waiver was never going to apply to my family. What concerns me is the injustice of the situation the Worcester Public Schools are creating. We're a district in which the vast majority of the kids live in poverty; those same kids are being pushed into these classes, and they are only being told AFTER they've been in class for most of the first quarter that there's, in essence, a charge for participation.
That's not right.
And it doesn't appear as if Title IV is going to fix that, either. 

Worcester meetings this week

Two Worcester school meetings this week:

• The Governance subcommittee continues their power drive through policies with a meeting on Tuesday at noon (very conducive to public input). Note that this section includes those on students (J), on negotiations (H), facilities (F), community relations (K), and educational agency relations (L). Most of the policies are MASC boilerplate. Interesting that the superintendent's chief of staff (I have to check the org chart; I didn't know there was such a position) is being given the power to approve WPS statements.

The School Committee meets Thursday at 7 pm with an executive session at 6. In executive session, there are still negotiations with custodians, computer techs, IAs, and educational secretaries, plus there is a teacher discipline case and pending litigation.

MASC will be out to give a series of awards to community members and to Mayor Petty, who is this year's All-State School Committee winner in Division IX (urbans). 

The report of the superintendent is on nursing in the 21st century. There are the usual beginning of year appointments, resignations, and retirements. 

There is a response that the Capstone project--which is the big AP push--was funded in the current year budget; a short response on the wraparound coordinators working at schools; a response on the QUEST program at QCC; a response on the "Seeds to STEM" program from WPI; and a response on improved manufacturing options. 

There's also a response on possible federal grant impacts, which begins with "Federal initiatives are very much in a state of flux," which may be the understatement of the administration. 

There is an update on the  "management plan activities" on the PCB situation at Doherty and Burncoat. The committee (again?) proposes to review the resolutions before the Delegate Assembly of MASC in November. There's a proposed building fee change (no report) and the close of the FY18 books (also no report as yet).

The administration is proposing participating in the model Educator Evaluation system (?no backup?).

There are a series of donations.

Mr. O'Connell wants to invite a representative from MNA to tour the schools; to modify the McKinney-Vento grant to include hurricane impacts (uh...); to investigate licensure options for those coming from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and to ask DESE to extend the October 1 count to later, considering those who may be evacuating elsewhere.

Miss Biancheria wants to discuss the Community Addiction Response Program.

I'm also confused by a series of financial responses coming in from Mr. O'Connell and Miss Biancheria from the last meeting, as there were no fiscal reports on the last agenda, nor any items filed. There's a chart from the Operational Services Division of tuition rates. There's the Educational Divisions supplies account from the FY18 budget. There's an explanation of the changes in the administration account from FY17 to FY18. And there's a report on the Environmental Systems Management. These all feel like budgetary questions, coming during second quarter; did someone just review their budget now?

Four things we don't know about AP tests

Yes, I know, I keep posting about this. But:

"remarkably little independent research has been conducted on the academic benefits of AP." That's according to Russell T. Warne, an assistant professor of psychology at Utah Valley University, who has done some of that limited research. Part of the problem, he tells NPR Ed, is that, "it's really hard to do causal research because we can't force people to do AP or force them out of it."

If we're going to keep pushing kids to take these course, we ought to be looking into this stuff first.  

Worcester school meetings this week

Two meetings for Worcester schools this week:

The subcommittee of Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports meets today at 5:30. On the agenda is a review on AP programs (not the scores, if you look at the backup); a discussion of the possible $20-$30,000 per year funding of Worcester Tech membership in SkillsUSA; a report on last year's summer programs; yet one more report on wifi (citing actual science); a report on "day-to-day PEAK-like instruction" in WPS elementary schools (in response to a request that the PEAK gifted program be re-established); and a discussion of citywide wrestling.

The full school committee meets Thursday; you can find the agenda here. After recognitions, there is a report on the Worcester HEARS initiative. There are citizen petitions requesting public hearings on the FY18 budget (required by state law) and on standardized testing.
There is a report back on elementary summer programming (18 days, four hours a day, at nine schools); there is a note regarding the decreased funding available this year. The committee is being asked to approve the innovation plan for the Goddard school (the link isn't to the plan, but to a summary; the full plan isn't posted).  Administration is asking that dates be set for FY18 budget hearings (really, budget sessions, unless they change this to take public comment).
Among the recognitions being filed this week is year four of ASBO recognizing the Worcester Public Schools' budget with its Meritorious Budget Award.
Mr. O'Connell wants to request funding for the science AP exams from the state; to submit nominations for awards to MASC; to possibly file items with MASC for its annual Delegate Assembly; and to pass an FBRC petition.
Ms. McCullough requests that the No Live Lice policy be reviewed.
There's another round of schools receiving grants for Breakfast in the Classroom from the EoS foundation.
The committee is being asked to accept a donation from Scholastic to Woodland Academy, and from Andy's Attic to South High for marketing.
Mayor Petty has filed a plan on PCB cleaning (still no money mentioned).
Miss Biancheria wants an inventory of playground equipment.

There is also an executive session scheduled: PCB's, negotiations with the teachers (still), and a grievance from an HVAC worker.

No liveblog; I have a presentation on Thursday. 

Worcester schools meetings this week

The Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday, March 16; you can find the agenda here.

The report of the superintendent this week is on drinking water quality (as an aside: that's been uploaded as the actual PDF, which I haven't seen happen on a school committee backup). The EAW is rallying ahead of Thursday's meeting for healthy schools, something which began with the PCB issue and has now expanded to air and water quality. Note that the report on Thursday is Worcester's part of the larger statewide testing in schools of water for lead and copper, as this is well beyond being a Worcester issue.
(I've been intending to do a larger facilities post at some point; I hope to get to that this week.)
There are a number of recognitions.
There are subcommittee reports from TLSS and from Governance. Note that TLSS apparently discussed the Burncoat academy (TM), in the only place I've been able to find that actually describes admission requirements--at least an advanced/proficient on 5th grade testing--and its "enriched" course of study. It is procedurally fascinating/problematic that this meeting took place after both the announcement and the first parent meeting; both parent meetings are taking place prior to any action by the full school committee. Also, the request to approve those courses appeared on the school committee agenda without detail prior to any discussion as to where they were going. 
In Governance, after a several years abeyance, it appears as though the subcommittee is doing a policy review!
The Administration is responding to a request for an update on dual enrollment.
They are also responding to a request regarding a Main South soccer team (no backup to link to).
There is a request that the committee accept a STARS residency grant for Elm Park ($4400 for Asian myths and storytelling).
There is a request that the committee accept a$37,292 Mass Commended Schools grant, which is going to the former Level 4 schools to share best practices during summer professional development.
There is a request that the committee accept a donation to Tatnuck Magnet.
There is a request that the committee accept a donation to Lakeview.
Miss Biancheria is requesting an update on the career and technical education grant; an update on summer school; and the enrollment report which the committee received at their January 19 meeting.

While it is not a report of the superintendent, Superintendent Binienda is also sharing her (draft until approved by the committee) goals (which are...vague?). Paraphrased:

• professional practice goal: to complete the first year of superintendent training
• student learning goal: by September, to provide intervention for 3rd, 6th, and 10th graders at high risk and not meeting test scores
• 1 on instructional leadership: to create and sustain excellent instruction through 1) continually evaluating data; 2) adding AP capstone and continuing SAT, PSAT, and college application day; 3) enhancing current literary initiatives
• 2 on management and operations: a supportive, safe, orderly learning environment through 1) a chronic absenteeism plan; 2) all teachers on the state evaluation system; 3) "implement and monitor strategies to ensure a safe, welcoming learning environment"
• 3 on family and community engagement: "engage responsively with families and higher education, business and community partners" through: 1) attending community events; 2) "deepen community support for 'Compact for Public Education in Worcester' by partnering with community businesses, agencies, and higher education" to quote; 3) opportunities for family engagement
• 4 on professional culture: "enhance professional collaborative culture that promote strong ethical leadership and scholarship" through: 1) providing high quality professional development; 2) providing targeted intervention including central admin support for lowest performing schools by monitoring turnaround schools; 3) assist schools in using data

The committee is also being asked to review and approve changes to the Collaborative's agreement; this appears to be a name change throughout (from "Central Massachusettts Special Education Collaborative" to "Central Massachusetts Collaborative"); there are no substantive changes.
And there is a request that the committee approve the AP Capstone Program; there is no backup on this, so I would assume it is going to subcommittee...? 
The Committee is also scheduled for an executive session at 6 on negotiations with the teachers' union and with custodians; and a grievance for an HVAC technician.

There also is a Legislative breakfast on Friday morning at 9 am at Worcester Tech; on the agenda is the FY18 budget and a visit to the new Nelson Place. It also appears they want to have another legislative meeting on March 30 to discuss the new academy, AP test funding, MSBA projects, and the Adopt-a-School program.
no liveblog at the meeting; I'll see about the Legislative breakfast. Maybe. 

The February Board of Education meeting: starting with opening remarks and "about last night"

The Board of Education meets today at 8:30; the agenda is here. 
Last night, after a significant amount of public comment, the Board voted to approve the Plymouth charter,  Old Sturbridge Village charter, and the Westfield charter, despite concerns around its Gulen ties.  It approved all expansion plans except the plans for the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter, around which there was significant testimony around their lack of serving all students.
posting as we go