A post that actually is about WPS Transportation

 I did promise you an actual WPS Transportation post; here it is! Note that a transportation update is part of this week's Finance and Operations Subcommittee meeting on Thursday at 5 pm. You can join us in person in room 410 of 20 Irving Street, or the Zoom link is at the top of the agenda, plus the meeting will be streamed online as usual.

If I can just reflect for a moment...

What a thing to go from this in the FY17 budget:

Text reads: Student Transportation: The Administration will explore the feasibility of directly providing all in-district student transportation services beginning in 2020. The analysis and recommendation will be forwarded to the School Committee in advance of the next student transportation contract period. Further, the current capital equipment budget funding level is insufficient to provide a reliable replacement cycle for special education buses. With 35 buses and 1-3 vehicle replacement funding per year, the Administration will need to explore the lease of vehicles through the operating budget in the near future.

...to this for the first day of the 2022-23 school year:

I can't think of anything I've been part of that's gone from vision to execution in quite this fashion. So when I tell you that I choked up a bit when I saw this on my phone Monday morning, I'm not exaggerating:

As I said at our meeting on Thursday, one thing that has mattered enormously in this undertaking has been the degree to which it has been embraced by the community. From the vote just over a year ago (how was it only that long??) by the Worcester School Committee over the objections of then-superintendent Binienda, the degree to which the community has been solidly on the side of making this work has been abundantly clear. This past week, the overwhelming number of messages I got from parents (and there were a lot!) had some mention of how much they appreciated the district was doing transportation in-house, even if they were contacting me with a concern or a need for information. This was Worcester's project, which Worcester embraced, and Worcester is making it work.

It's far far too early for "Mission Accomplished" banners, but I don't think it's too early to note the vision that got us here was Brian Allen's--those are his words above in the FY17 budget--who has continued to ask how we can run our systems more effectively and more efficiently.
"Cycle of continuous improvement," anyone?

And, speaking as a school committee member, I'd sure as heck rather be paying our local bus drivers $30 an hour than sending any of our limited public dollars off to the international shareholders of National Express.

ON TO ACTUAL INFORMATION (much of this drawn from this week's update from Superintendent Monárrez):

• We started the week with 74 full-sized buses for the 74 routes those run, but we had several buses in and out of service for the first few days. That's clearly going to be less of an issue as more of the new buses--of which another 10 will be ready for this coming Wednesday--come into service and fewer of the buses we're renting are what we're using. That also will increase the number of buses we have overall, which will take some of the pressure off each bus.
  
  
• We have more drivers being trained, tested, and starting all of the time. (I think we even had someone pass a test Thursday?) Remember, we're training in-house, too, so new drivers are learning all of the time. It's going to be a bit before we get up to full (budgeted) strength on the number of drivers, but we're getting there. 
  
  
• For those who are asking when things, particularly in the afternoon, will be more dependably on time, the answer is twofold: the first few weeks are always creaky (they always have been), PLUS as we cycle more drivers in and can both decouple routes and have spares, there will be much smoother afternoons. So you'll see improvement over the next few weeks, with further improvements over the next few months with more drivers and buses on.
  
  
• Enter this number in your cell: 508-799-3241. That's WPS Transportation. They start answering the phones about when the buses leave the lot, and they're there until buses get back. 
  Crucial point about the phones: the wait time quoted is inaccurate. I know a number of people calling early in the week (include School Committee vice-chair Jermaine Johnson!) who had a quoted wait time of an hour; that was never actually the case! They're working to disable this message when you're on hold, but in the meantime, please don't believe it.
  Also, please note that liaisons speak Spanish and Portuguese in addition to English, so share that!
  
  
• On the app: The app available for students and families is called VersaTrans MyStop, made by Tyler Technologies. You can find district directions here. As a student or family member, you need only student ID and birthday to sign in; it syncs with our student information system to pull up and give access to the bus to which your student is assigned (and no others). 
  A few things to remember: you'll only see the outline of the route once the bus has started out, and you'll only see the bus on your student's route. However, we do have a few buses that are running double routes in the afternoons (they pick up at the high school, drop a busful at the stops closest to school that clear the bus, and go back to school for a longer, second route), and that it IS a double route isn't clear on the app. The schools do know this, and it should be clear to your student. The GPS also can't tell if what the bus is running is a consolidated route (in other words, the bus is picking up students from more than one route); this has happened when families might not see their bus running, and then a bus appears. Both of these will be resolved as more buses and drivers come online, and we can stop having to do this.
  If you are still having issues with your app, please call Transportation during the day and have them walk you through a reset. At this point, with the exceptions of the above, the app is operational, so if you're having issues, it's your connection with the app that needs to be fixed.
  
  
• If you are interested in how this is going and where this is going, please do read the backup for this week's meeting (that links straight to the page) for more information of where we are now, where we're going this year, and what happens next. And again, that meeting is at 5 on Thursday, and the public is welcome (online or in person).
  
  
• And if you have questions, please continue to send them along. The changes and improvements on this have been more than daily, and I know the feedback, questions, issues, and so forth getting back to those running the system have made a difference. Keep 'em coming. 

This post from Robert Reich this Labor Day reminded me of the spirit that's clear every time I walk into the Transportation Department. We'd gotten a few questions over if there'd be a division, for example, between those who have driven directly for the district right along, and those who were working for contractors. Through goodwill on all sides, a self-identification among staff as "Worcester Public School" bus drivers and monitors (that's what the buses all said, after all!), and management that genuinely values people, there has been an ongoing sense of (as with the larger community) this being a group effort to make this the best dang public school bus system around. 

Finally (and with the caveat that lists are dangerous things and always leave people out!), what a difference leadership makes: having Dr. Monárrez walk through the things that were not working (not denying they were there), while discussing what concrete steps were being taken to improve a system that people were working very hard to improve is what makes a system actually get better over time. I appreciate her thoughtful consideration of what is working and what isn't, her honesty about it, and then her leading concrete planning to improve systems.

I do want to note that having a transportation system directed by John Hennessey, who can 'make sense' of transportation in a way that's a combination of innate skill and experience that can't be matched, has been part of my level of confidence that this all can fly.
I also want to note the enormous amount of work done by assistant director of transportation Mike Freeman this week (and before and probably after!); I know I personally talked to him one morning before 6 am, and I got an email from him one night at 9 pm, and I know I wasn't alone. Mike is ongoingly devoted to making this all work better, and we couldn't be in a better position there.
The supervisors who are overseeing all that's going in and out--Wayne Cardwell, Angel Carrasquillo and Benjamin River--remind me of those movie sailors at the wheel, steadily steering a ship through a hurricane (sorry, gentlemen; I may just have condemned you to having that metaphor follow you!).
Yelitza Garcia is HR over at Transportation; one of my favorite tidbits from the FY23 budget is that Transportation staffing has increased 174.4%. That's Yelitza!
If you connected with someone at Transportation this week specifically about MyStop, that was Cassie Shea in IT, and thank goodness for her! 
We have had routers working for us for years at this point--did you know we have ongoing changes over the course of the year?--and Kerri Collins and Joy Winnie have been stalwarts through all the changes these past years.
If you are among those who have ever said "I could never do that" about driving a school bus: imagine teaching others to drive a school bus? We could not be making this work without the trainers and safety people--Marianne Bryan, Kathy Everett, Jason Crue, Dawn Cavanaugh, and Peggy Holloway (some of whom were driving buses themselves this week!), and I know they've also been key to that cohesiveness among the drivers and monitors, too. 

Anyone who answers phones to respond to questions and does it well consistently (said this elected official) is performing an underappreciated service, and the transportation liaisons responding in particular to parents these first weeks of school are so crucial to making this all work. That's Owen Tessier, Annaliese Estabrook, Becca Carlberg, and Adriana Campbell. 

Those actually keeping the buses running--the mechanics who are Jani Nakollari, James Hicks, and John Holmes--are literally keeping it all going.

And of course, to all the drivers and to all the monitors who are actually making the transportation happen: thank you! 
Onward to week two!
If I missed anyone above, that's my error and please tell me!

What happened last night at Worcester School Committee (11/18/21)

So what happened at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting? 

For those for whom the sound didn't work until a bit of a way in, Roger Nugent, president of the EAW, spoke first requesting that we amend an earlier authorization for sick bank use for an employee (extending it beyond days donated by one school to the larger employee pool, as some donations came from outside the school), and shared a petition from some members on "choice" around vaccinations.

We had TWO student reps at the meeting last night: Stacia Zoghbi (who's our ex officio, as she was elected by the other student reps to be our official non-voting member) and Julianna Manxhari; Stacia goes to Tech and Julianna to Doherty. They sent out a survey to their peers across the district--students, PLEASE TAKE IT!!--and plan to share the results of that with us at one of our next meetings. They've also asked for a seat on the superintendent's search committee (and it sounds to me as if they're going to get it). 

The report of the superintendent was from Dr. Marco Andrade (whom I mentally refer to as "the data person") with a report that was framed from the perspective on the Office on Civil Rights (a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Education) around disparities in student data on social-emotional data, achievement information, absentee and discipline data, and post-graduate education and persistence. The report is here, starting on page 28. We have significant gaps, as was noted, and this is being referred to School and Student Performance for further discussion, because (as I said at the meeting) the data is only the start; the question is what we're going to do with it.

Reporting out were both Finance and Operations and Teaching, Learning, and Student Support standing committees. F&O had the transportation report, so we approved the new position descriptions (as budgeted for in the report, and as approved as part of the plan) for that department at the same time. And yes, we're hiring!
We also had the first quarter report, and one part concerned me: 

A $400K transfer from teachers to administration would raise an eyebrow, in any case, but it have it come in for the first quarter report--when we just passed the budget in June--and to have it explained as the conversation of five EL teachers to four EL administrators, particularly when we had just received a report from that department a few months back with no mention of this is simply bad process. 
I voted for the transfer, in part because it became clear that the administration had actually hired people ahead of the transfer, which is also bad process. 

TLSS had the vocational admissions policy, and Ms. McCullough noted that the deliberation also included discussion of the recruitment of more representative applicants (as the demographics of Tech become non-representative by who applies even with the new policy), as well as some discussion of the question of interest, which will be taken up during tours. The standing committee's report was passed, which gives provisional approval. Final approval will follow a public hearing next month.
Note that later in the meeting, we accepted a grant for $130K that is directed at this question of student recruitment to Tech.

We received back a report on an item I'd filed that had been bounced back and forth several times as incomplete regarding contracts that are directly with the superintendent. I'd heard concerns months ago that contracts weren't being completed, and so filed the item back in August. Eventually, the principal contracts largely were fulfilled, but there have been a number of outstanding administration contracts that were still not completed. I'll share here what we got last night: 

Beyond the contracts still not renewed, there are two things here that concerned me. The first is this group of people marked "N/A" who, I was told, simply do not have contracts. There isn't parity across administration in who this is, though, and I'm concerned that this not being based on something solid could open us up to discrimination allegations.
The second thing, from the far right column, is several contracts that now expire in 2026; that is, some people have recently been given five year contracts. This is itself unusual--five years for public contracts is covered for other circumstances by laws--but contracts given for five years by a superintendent who herself is leaving in seven months is particularly attention grabbing, as was my subsequent understanding that questions have been raised about extending contracts that are not yet expired.
As Mayor Petty noted, there is case law around the ability of executive successor, backed by the public committee, being able to cancel extensions in such circumstances, and he told Superintendent Binienda last night that he expected any updates not already included above to come before the School Committee.

We received back an updated report from Mrs. Clancey's motion asking for information on the transfers; this was the additional elementary teachers and the additional adjustment counselors. She asked for information to be shared with the school committee about what the adjustment counselors are finding in their discussions. 
I was concerned to learn that the elementary teachers, who we'd specifically transferred to lower class size, largely have not been assigned to do so; only three are classroom teachers. 

An additional position for the Chief Diversity Officer passed (6-1; I was the 'no' vote, as I think this office continues to be poorly defined, and I think that needs to be fixed first.)

We accepted at $12,500 grant from Mass Insight for AP teacher training.

The audits are coming to F&O! (That's all we know so far. They do every year.)

Ms. McCullough filed an item looking into playground inspection and repair, so expect to see that coming.

She also asked for a reassessment of the need for crossing guards at secondary schools.

We also had clarified, on her motion, that volunteers MAY be in schools, so long as they have provided either proof of up to date vaccination or recent negative COVID test (just like employees).

And she asked about virtual tutoring. Earlier in the meeting, Miss Biancheria questioned administration about part-time tutors who are retirees possibly being hired.

I filed an item specifically on bus 38, as I haven't gotten any response to my emails to the superintendent (who has directed that communication with Durham is hers) regarding it.

We're also going to recognize all the people who don't get recognized when you build a new school building for opening South (or at least we're going to try!).

And we're going to thank the National Guard, AA Transportation, plus WPS Transportation (per the superintendent's request) and the Lieutenant Governor (per the Mayor's request) for their work on transportation in October. Other amendments were not accepted.

And then a report I hope comes back soon: 

Request administration report urgently via school level staff on student disregulation, how it is manifesting in our schools, how staff is managing and coping with such disregulation, and what resources and policy changes from this Committee are necessary to better support students, families, and staff.

We next meet on the Monday the 22nd with the superintendent search firm! 5:30! 

But wait, there's more!

I feel as if I am back in the days when I started this blog, when there'd be the single article about the School Committee meeting, and anything else that happened, you didn't hear about. While admittedly both voting to move to fully in-house transportation and voting to start a national search for a new superintendent are news of the headline making sort, there are other things that happened at our meetings in the past two weeks. 

Here's a rundown on the highlights:

Over the past number of weeks, we've ratified contractual agreements with EAW units A&B (that's anyone classified as a teacher plus assistant principals and the like); drivers and monitors; custodians; computer technicians; 52 week administrative secretaries;  and educational secretaries. In every case, those contracts brought them at least up to date as of the close this past fiscal year OR brought them up through the end of this one (this last is the case with the teachers). As a result, the School Committee this past week voted an increase for the non-represented (non union) employees, which is everyone from administrators to crossing guards. 
I can't talk out of turn on the units that are outstanding save to say that negotiations are ongoing. 

We had an update on the dual language program at the August 26 meeting, which, among other things, noted that the state assessing our dual language learners only in English doesn't accurately assess their actual knowledge and skill in subject matters. We asked to be apprised of which districts are running dual language programs, so we might work with them on advocacy, though this obviously is larger than the dual language program.

While the report out on the August 18 Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting attracted attention largely due to the recommendation to move fully to in-house transportation, I don't want to overlook the closing of the fiscal year. Worcester had, remember, a $372M budget for FY21, after we cut $16M once we finally got a state budget. For municipal districts, anything that isn't spent--down literally to the penny--goes back to the municipality to be certified as free cash for the end of the year. That is a difficult and complex process. 
And how much did the Worcester Public Schools give back this year?

$3. 

Thus, if a dollar went to the Worcester Public Schools for education last year, that's what it was spent on. 

And so when folks ask "how can you have confidence in the projections for transportation?" the answer is this: when you have a finance office that has been doing this (and the associated budget transfers) and the back and forth with RTTT and grants that disappear during budget seasons and all the other swings that we've seen over the past more than a decade, and yet year after year, these are the results, you trust your people and their work.

At our August 26 meeting, on Mr. Monfredo's motions, we voted to send mandating vaccinations of our employees to executive sessions to take up as part of negotiations. I'd note that the EAW leadership has already been public on their agreement with this, so it's largely a matter of working out the how and when. There are negotiations going on now regarding bargaining around issues related to back to school. 

Several of us have received concerns about how lunch is being eaten in this return to school in the pandemic time, so I had filed an item at the August 26 meeting, urging outdoor as possible and creativity everywhere. While some schools are doing some very neat things, I've continued to get heightened concerns from families around what looks a lot like regular operations at some schools, however. 

I had also filed at the August 26 meeting a request for the list of outstanding contracts the superintendent has with employees; that is, the employees whose contracts are not collectively bargained but are directly with the superintendent. We have a number of them that are expired for a year or more. That report was due back at our meeting on September 2, but we did not receive it. 

At our August 26 meeting, Ms. Clancey filed an item regarding the concerns the neighborhood around Lincoln Street School has had with community homelessness impact on the school. We heard something of an update at the meeting of attendance at the community meeting regarding this, as well as work going forward. 

At our September 2 meeting, Ms. McCullough filed an item regarding parking for students at Doherty during construction, which there are a few things going on with.

Also at our September 2 meeting, the Committee on a 6-1 (Biancheria opposing) vote agreed to send a letter to our delegation requesting that the state Department of Public Health mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for students as it is permissible, and, if that does not happen, request that the Legislature do so.

We also asked the administration to look into the recently released update that districts may provide remote education to students who are ill or quarantining due to COVID. We were told, however, that the Department recently said that they'd bar districts from using remote learning for snow days. 

Next meeting of the Committee is September 23 (moved from September 16, which is Yom Kippur). 

Liveblog: Finance and Operations closes FY21 and talks transportation

 And the agenda is here. 

posting as we go once it starts

Foley: FY21, how did we fare relative to the budget, and how much did we give back to the city
$3 on a $300M budget
Allen: final spending in relation to the adopted budget, not the transfers over the course of the year
what happened in the course of the year
December adoption after $16M cut
used to "improve budget development practices moving forward"
very different: some additional extended remote savings, additional COVID costs
"despite these challenges...all credit to Budget Director Sara Consalvo and her team for a very successful close"
Foley: Questions?
Great work the budget office, an outstanding job
at August 26 meeting will make that public as well
motion to file

and on to transportation:
Foley: part of our conversation on Durham services and "some of the continuing problems with management at Durham services"
facing deadline for transportation for end of school year 2021, as well
items, plus direction on what plans are for next year
there had been a possibility of a one year extension or not
both C and D plus any comments on the backup material

Allen: bus drivers provided to School Committee at budget time
have had weekly meetings 
Durham reported each week; just received an updated email
available to us: 19 drivers short for big drivers for open of school without any coverage for absences
Foley: what is the plan to meet this shortfall?
Binienda: regional manager had said that, "the person who does some of the routing...what is her title" 
Allen: customer service manager
Binienda: "they were going to speak today...would like to speak with them. Contact them and verify with them."
McCullough: no questions per say, interested once we know the actual deficit and what our actual plan is going to be
Biancheria: when will we get a final count on what we have for the first day of school?
Binienda: "hopefully will get that tonight and will let School Committee know tomorrow"
Foley: will have to accommodate the shortfall
Biancheria: who is developing a plan to ensure our kids are going to get to and from school?
Binienda: Allen, Hennessey, myself, Durham
Biancheria: and when do we anticipate that plan is going to be ready?
Binienda: hopefully we could finish that this week
Biancheria: the 23rd?
to reroute what we need to reroute using our buses?
Do we have additional buses and drivers available?
Allen: the answer, hiring interviews tomorrow to get us to the level needed for this year
Biancheria: what are our vacancies under WPS?
Allen: filling 5 and 6 drivers, have people signed up and coming for interviews tomorrow
Biancheria: 6 for WPS and 19 for Durham; do we have any coming from anywhere else?
any available coming from anywhere else?
Binienda: two Durham drivers resigned today to come to WPS
general shortage of drivers, billboards hiring AA
shortage that Durham having, "in order to work it out, we'll have to work it out"
Biancheria: percentage is about the same on both sides
"if we don't have this plan ready for Monday, when are we going to inform parents that their child may not be getting a bus ride to school"
Binienda: do have ten buses that only do a first tier afternoon route
"an example would be not having transportation for athletics" (??)
Biancheria: additional traffic, additional coverage
"How do we resolve this issue, it doesn't seem as if we're going to have an opportunity to resolve this"
wondering if people being interviewed tomorrow drive today for Durham and now work for the Worcester Public Schools
do we know if they came from Durham yet?
Allen: looking at the current civil service list, there could be one, 
of the two mentioned, know of only one currently working for Head Start, not for WPS 
Foley: express concern, very difficult rerouting the buses, think seven days is the mimimum time needed
doesn't give enough time
really need a really solid number to make the plans
Allen: different from this year and last year is the number of students coming back
Foley: can't reroute
"the alarm from all of us that you're hearing"
"we have more confidence in our numbers in order to hire before schools start"
"problem with Durham numbers have fluctuated quite a bit"
number short doesn't include any support for absenteeism
Allen: ten drivers per day
Foley: more than 19 to cover absenteeism as well

Allen on ESSER funds: eligiblity for ESSER funding
So long as it meets any of the federal grants
IDEA can be used for special education buses; was not at that time clear on big buses
have heard back "if you can make it COVID related, then it would be approved for ESSER spending"

Foley: also provided the report from Sept. 2019 summary and recommendation from the last time the transportation contract was extended
along with additional analysis on buying buses
current status and deadlines?
Allen: two year contract FY21 and FY22 with option of third year FY23
third year at sole decision of city
city made that decision by October 1, 2021
Foley: recognize back seven years ago has become little competition for transportation for large school districts
not seeing competitive bid prices, not seeing level of service
"we have experience with significant difficulities wiht the management of Durham...not the bus drives, in many ways of drivers are exceptional, both those who drive for Durham and who drive for us"
"our concerns have been with Durham management"
continuing problem with the driver shortfall
continuing issue with getting credits from Durham
provided a breech on contract letter, as went for so long without drivers filled
"have been other issues as well"
have been waiting for at least seven years for family-friendly GPS routing for buses
"that hasn't happened"
we have GPS in our buses--Allen "We have the ability to launch that on our buses"
lack of communication, families trying to find where their kids
issue of communication with all of us on the public school side
have been planning for running as self-operation
Discussed back at 2015 contract; would begin to build support operation
"in many ways, we're running a very large transportation network already with the buses we are running"
moving to run self-operation, very confident that we can improve on the service, improve on the communication
"can plan for that, can improve those services, can improve communication with families"
"let them know what is going on with their bus systems that we have"
two years ago, projected savings of $3M a year
with purchasing buses, savings is now $4M a year
can improve service, can consider later start for high school, can consider reduction in two mile requirement, can help fund other WPS items
a self-operation would provide a significant reduction in field trips 10% reduction in costs
MOTIONS:
1. will not exercise a third year option in contract with Durham
2. will take responsibility for transportation services beginning with end of this current school year (2021-22) entirely
3. directs administration to begin immediately to ready to run an effective transportation network, including hiring drivers and purchasing buses
4. use ESSER funding to acquire vehicles necessary to run transportation network

McCullough: has never been an issue with the drivers, being on front line and bearing the brunt
otherwise have hit every other issue
GPS tracking and access, plus benefits discussed over the years

Biancheria: motion, as we proceed we take into consideration a priority the Durham drivers that would be filling out applications with the Worcester Public Schools
is that legal?
is not a reflection that they are employed by Durham
Feasibility of purchasing buses from Durham; what buses they own and how are they fueled, are they looking to sell buses to us at a reasonable price?
administration of transportation has moved to Northeast Cutoff, will need to use that for more 
where it will be located and how much it will cost
motion that job descriptions be in process and something we are reviewing as much as they can, with the possibility of who is going to run this and who is going to do this
Foley: report back monthly on progress being made on moving to self-operation would talk about administrative needs would talk about who is running it and progress, staffing, capital equipment, location, and costs
Biancheria: and costs, please make sure the costs are there
Durham is represented by Teamsters; our drivers are represented by EAW
Foley: "we would work with whoever represents the drivers"
clearly something that's down the road
Biancheria: don't want it to get lost; those with a good record will come over to the Worcester Public Schools
have two different unions that are under our umbrella
Foley: suggestion we deal with the essence of the contract, if it passes the School Committee, make a mention that night, but have see that this passes the Committee
Biancheria: need to recognize that WPS bus drivers are under EAW, Durham drivers are under Teamsters 170
"all I am asking is that we recognize this in this process"

Binienda: obviously don't agree with this
"if this had been done in 2019, we wouldn't have been able to close the budget gap"
(HAHAHAHAA: Later edit: let me explain why I am laughing. The superintendent's argument is, because we largely closed last year's budget gap by not paying Durham, that there would have been no way to close the gap if we hadn't been paying Durham. This clearly is false on its face. Moreover, it misses that if the district had switched to self-op back in 2019, the district would have first, been saving $3M a year, plus would have already had the added flexibility of those drivers being in house. So, as the old phrase goes: that dog won't hunt)
still have shortage of drivers (yes, but note the difference between Durham's gap and WPS's. Not mentioned at the meeting: the WPS gap is SUBSTITUTE drivers. WPS has all routes covered.)
also think people have gone out of their way that they have not been a partner, have come to the table
(this is poor comfort to any of us who have continued to have buses not come and phones not answered)
"don't know how we can say we're going to use ESSER funding, when we have needs in our schools every day"
" buses are not what kids need...they need to get to school, but I don't know what those needs are"
(well, first, they need to get to school. That itself is already something too often not happening)
"I talked to Durham today and said that I suspected that this conversation would happen today"
"even though everybody in this administration was not made aware of that fact"
it's been discussed since 2015; this was the plan since 2019. We made it clear this was the discussion on the table prior to renewal when we did the budget in June. This administration--or rather, the superintendent herself--absolutely has had every chance to be more than aware of this. 
even suggested that Durham runs half our routes
So...we continue to have the same headache without being able to fix it all?
"plan that was obviously hatched tonight"
Foley: have talked about self-operation for more than seven years 
when the contracts were issued we talked about that
Began
"We wouldn't be here if Durham management weren't performing at a higher level"
"to say that it was hatched tonight is unfair, because we've been talking about this for seven years"
"would hope that Durham would work with us...we have a very important year ahead of us"
Binienda: got voted down in 2019, but never did the study, because "we struggled to find someone"
Biancheria: was against it, but as I've looked at Worcester Public Schools has done, all indications went in that direction to say to me that being respectful to Durham bus drivers and being respectful to Teamsters, their union is represented and has come to school committee meetings
looking for solid recommendations, look forward to the plan, complete with costs 

all four motions pass, Biancheria's motions to be written up and passed just prior to full committee meeting

Worcester meetings this week: back to school, closing FY21, and transportation

 There are two Worcester Public Schools meetings this week:

On Tuesday, there is a back to school forum at 6 pm. Please note that you can submit questions to be answered (use the same link; the form is there in several languages) until tomorrow (Monday) also at 6pm.
As a side note, the School Committee didn't get asked about scheduling here, so not all of us can make it, including me.
As per usual, that will be streamed on Facebook, as well as via the Zoom link. 
Note also that Molly McCullough has been collecting answers we know already on this Facebook post.

On Wednesday, there is a Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting at 4:30 pm. There are two items on the agenda: the closing of the books on FY21 and a transportation update. 
The FY21 closure demonstrates, first, why I'm always a little confused by the question of how much funding the district 'gives back to the city': 

...and second, that the WPS Budget office is just damn good at their job. Remember that the school district is allocated a particular amount of funding--in our case, it is the MINIMUM amount of funding legally required--to education the children of the city of Worcester. Anything that isn't spent by June 30 goes back to the city to be certified as free cash.
If we have the money for education, it gets spent on education. Period. I've been searching for a metaphor for landing a $372M budget on $3--one doesn't 'land' aircraft carriers, I suppose--but take something very big and make it end up on something very small, and you're there. 
Thus, what is an annual h/t to the WPS Budget office.

Second, remember school buses? 
Maybe you also remember back in March of 2019, when the (then) Worcester School Committee received a report on moving to self-operated transportation, projected not only to offer better service (largely due to management)  but also to save the district $30M over ten years?
And then decided to renew with Durham instead?

Time to have that conversation again, as the contract with Durham is up this year. 
F&O has the full transportation report back on this agenda, but with an update, as we now have an additional opportunity within the self-op: We have money that we can use to buy buses. 
You may not be surprised to find that this means additional savings and more quickly; here's the financial rundown: 

Yes, that's up to $40M in total savings over ten years, or on average $4M a year.
That starts with FY24 at $3.8M.

As I've said before, it's against the state code of ethics to pre-deliberate before a meeting. I also think I've posted plenty about this before, (including my actually pulling papers right about when this decision was made, shortly after yet another morning when I was getting texts from my kids, wondering where their bus was).
But if you have something to say on transportation, now's the time. 

The ongoing bus saga

 I think I've probably missed a couple of chapters of updates here on the blog, but, as we had a fairly lengthy discussion Thursday night during what was otherwise a pretty short meeting, I thought I should add something here. 

With the continued shortage of Durham buses, or, more specifically, drivers, and with the high schools back five days a week, the district has had to insert a double first run on a number of route like so:

Most buses do two or three runs already: they'll do a high school route, drop those students off, go back out and do an elementary route, drop those students off, and go back out and do a later elementary route. This has some of our--and I do mean Worcester Public School-run buses--doing a high school run, then doing a second high school run before they go do the second tier. In order for this to work (and I use that word reluctantly), the pick up for those students is really (as you can see) early, and the students are being dropped off at school as early as a half hour before school starts. As we said on Thursday, if that's a family's choice, that's one thing, but when we are doing it--and then, in some cases, leaving students outside--that's not okay.

This is the continued impact of having fewer than our contracted number of buses through Durham, as also shown in the memo we received for Thursday's meeting: 

I went through and added another row to the chart: on 3/39 we were short 37 contracted buses; on 5/3 we were short 29 contracted buses; on 5/17; we're short 21 contracted buses.

Note that as of Thursday, we were a month out from our vote to send a letter of breech of contract. We were told Thursday that the letter had not yet been sent. We passed an item that it be done so and that we receive the letter, signed by the Mayor as our chair.

21 contracted buses times two or three tiers is a lot of students impacted. And that in turn is a lot of families impacted, and a lot of schools impacted.

This isn't just about the frustration that this creates for everyone (including the rest of our staff!) involved. We run buses so students can get to and from school without that being a responsibility of families exclusively. When we push this back onto families, we increase inequity, as the families who lack resources--of time, of private cars, of additional help--are those whose students are then not able to get to school on time or at all. 

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. 

A few things to watch from last week's Worcester School Committee meeting

I mean, I always tell you to go watch the budget presentation, literally. It starts about 15 minutes in.

• There was some updating of minutes necessary, but the upshot is that there will be, going forward, a standing item on the Finance and Operations subcommittee agenda on transportation, a form for families and students to fill out to report late and missing buses, and reports on that weekly posted online and sent to the School Committee until we get an app and can report from that. So far, no sign of the form. 



...in the meantime, let us know...

• This was coming out of Miss McCullough's subcommittee, but, as was noted in the T&G, there's some revision going on around admission to Worcester Tech. Note that there is also a larger state effort around equity in admission that may require further revision. 
• Mrs. Clancey's item to provide social media updates in multiple languages passed for implementation, so watch for that.
• I asked for a report on all fees paid by families of Worcester Public School students for classes. When this comes back, I'd appreciate some reflection on if we've missed anything, as we are supposed to be offering a free public education.
• The dress code is back in Governance, but we've also sent this to the Student Advisory Council. This needs student and family input!
• My request that we pass a resolution, calling on the City administration to not attribute work on Duffy Field or Foley Stadium's fields stemming from Doherty's construction to the Worcester Public Schools' capital budget passed, 5-2, Monfredo and Biancheria opposing. Here's why that matters: the School Committee does not pass the schools' capital budget. As with all municipal committees, it is passed on the city side. For both North and South, we had to make allowances of various kinds to get athletes to practice space during school construction. For Doherty, it was proposed back at the December meeting that the back field at Foley and Duffy Field (which is a city park) both be astroturfed, to a cost of $5-$7M. As I noted last month, funding this work from the Worcester Public Schools' capital budget of more or less $3M a year would zero our other capital work out for most of two years if not more. We simply cannot afford to have absolutely NO capital work done in our 50 buildings, which have 86% of the delayed maintenance on 60% of the city buildings, for multiple years.
  This was a view shared by most of my colleagues. 

"What’s the point of having a bus system if it can’t be trusted?"

A part of the ongoing "is this happening/is it just us or is this actually a larger management issue?" check in on Durham Bus Services across the country.

When we last checked in on Charleston, SC, they had accepted a HIGHER bid from First Student  as a result of their current issues with Durham; Durham protested. The district has denied the protest, saying it did not come in on time. Durham has now filed an appeal. As noted by WCSC:

Durham has provided bus services for the school district for more than a decade and has faced criticism from some parents for poor service. This school year alone, Durham has faced a number of problems with late buses and a bus driver shortage.

Heading closer to home, Framingham isn't the only district that has had it with Durham--their meeting this Wednesday will focus on transportation--as Wallingford, Connecticut reports similar problems. Asked about drivers shortages, the superintendent responded:

Menzo said he understands some drivers will be out sick, but wants to see a return to “normal.” 

“Families can’t tolerate this any further, I can't tolerate this any further as a superintendent,” he said.

Wallingford's contract is up this year--the decision is expected in May or June--but the local editorial board opined:

What’s the point of having a bus system if it can’t be trusted? 

The situation needs to be corrected as soon as possible, and shouldn’t wait while the school system goes about the process of awarding the next five-year transportation contract.

 ...a sentiment with which one can only agree.

Worcester Finance and Operations subcommittee

And the agenda and backups are here.
The big thing, to preview, is the second quarter report, which gives some perspective on where the budget will end up by the end of the year.

What happened with Worcester schools transportation last night?

Good article from Scott O'Connell this morning, but just to be clear on the School Committee items coming from the discussion:

1. Mr. Foley sent a standing item to the Finance and Operations subcommittee (which meets at least quarterly) on busing issues.
2. Once MyStop is running, the School Committee is to receive weekly reports on time performance (how many buses were late or didn't run, which ones had to have routes picked up by the other for lack of drivers, by Durham or WPS).
3. I added that a simple, smartphone-friendly form be added to the transportation website for families and students to use to report late buses; and
4. That up until MyStop is running, that THOSE weekly results be shared, including the late bus reports also filed by administrators at the schools (who I urge to keep filing those reports!).

Update: on the video of the meeting, this starts at about 26 minutes in with Mr. Foley taking up the item, the public comment, and the response of members. The ongoing issue, as he says, is that the School Committee has no idea how Worcester Public School bus service really is in the city right now. There was an rejection that this is an issue from a few members--perhaps summed up as how could we bring this up again?--but we should note that this assurance is not based on any actual data. We can't know how this is going if we don't know.
Right now the only people who know this are, to some degree, the schools, and, of course, students and families.

If you're interested in what's going on with Framingham, you can read here, here, and here. And while you're looking, you could read about Cumberland this week.
How vendors with whom we do business conduct their business is our business.

Worcester School Committee first business meeting of 2020

The agenda is here.
I'll update as I am able


There's a number of petitions coming in from Mr. Davis, which are here. Important note: public petitions are referred to subcommittee without comment from the committee (they aren't posted items, so committee deliberation would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law). This doesn't mean you're being ignored! Petitioners are informed of when the subcommittee meeting is on their items, at which deliberation actually takes place.
In this case, the petition includes a number of proposed topics for policies, and the items are being referred to Governance (chaired by Mrs. Clancey, Mr. Monfredo and I are the other two members).
Speakers speak to the school to prison pipeline, the need for anti-bias training, and greater consideration for the ways in which students, particularly those of color are treated
Petty speaks that wellness counselors is something important to be considered under the funding of the Student Opportunity Act.
Items gb 0-32 and 33 are taken out of order, as Teamsters are here to speak to them.
Mr. Foley notes that the School Committee has little idea of how the buses are actually doing at this time; the items are designed to give that information to the School Committee.
The Teamster business manager doesn't believe that the schools should be running buses, that he'd like to see "both sides" held accountable.
Ms. Biancheria objects to the comparison with Framingham, noting its relative difference in size, comments that she doesn't want to micromanage, that a bus being 15 minutes late on a single day happens due to traffic or construction sometimes.
I spoke, adding a motion, which passed, requesting a simple reporting form on the transportation page for parents and students to report buses which are late, asking that we receive that report weekly until MyStop is up and running (we're on the third contract requiring GPS reporting), and urging administrators to report late buses. I also said a lot about parent and student experience of buses. 
Administration says that MyStop should be up and running in the coming weeks; integration with Durham is what is lacking, it appears.
And the morning article on that is here


Report of the Superintendent is an update on the building of the new South High (the backup is here, but it's just photos; the report includes a video, which the Mayor asks be put up on the website). The Mayor notes that it is projected to open at about the same time as the baseball stadium.

Presentation on vaping: you can find resources here
The Mayor's question is requesting clarification of the amount of nicotine: a Juul pod is the same amount as a pack of cigarettes.

The Commissioner shared with the urban superintendents a presentation which Superintendent Binienda presents: Governor Baker's budget is released on January 22, the Commissioner will present at the superintendents' gathering the next day (Thursday).
Plans must be voted by the school committee prior to submission on April 1; the plan then is for the Worcester School Committee to have it at their last March meeting
focus on how funding will be used to reduce gaps
"commit to doing a few things well" built on district improvements
The state is attempting to require curriculum to be on CURATE in order to be approved
required that parents, community stakeholders, the special education and English learner PAC
collaboration with the community groups
"right now we've been told that no district should be talking about any type of number on this"
"they're also in the process of writing an amendment process" which I assume is due to the fact that budgets essentially are never based on the Governor's budget
targets will be calculated using 2020 as a baseline, but many of them don't exist
the thinking at this time is that there will be metrics but no targets
thus target setting would not be required in the initial plan submitted in April.

Mayor: this is probably the most important issue we'll be doing over the
three Mondays in February excluding vacation week, first week in March in four different quadrants
have we're going to operate those meetings
then come up with a report on how those meetings will be run
Foley: also doing something online to solicit feedback
critical importance of adding our parent advisory councils involved
use site councils
Monfredo: one of the groups we need to reach out to is our educators
teachers have a vested stake in our schools
Binienda: just sent out allocation dates to principals for their meetings
I'll update this with more info as we have it. Also note that the next meeting on Feb. 6 will be on budget

report on the question of consolidation of facilities city and school sides
I had some questions on this, which I'll post on.

report on Columbus Park school, which notes that the HVAC systems (outside the boiler)
Foley: we're at 80% of the deferred maintenance in our buildings (of all buildings in the city, WPS has 65%)
"we have a financial problem in investing in our schools"
remember, we closed eight schools: "our elementary schools are bursting at the seams"

We're going to have to come back to the argument over grants...I'll make a separate post...

On Miss McCullough's request for a report the last 7-10 years on the number of students in the WPS who have mastered a particular trade and succeeded in securing a position in it, we apparently only check this one year out because it is hard to find the graduated students longer.

The Mayor's item to send the rules to subcommittee (Governance) raised concerns from Biancheria and Monfredo that, in essence, we might spend less time on recognitions.

After a back and forth in which Mr. Monfredo initially made a motion to hold and then withdrew it, the Mayor's item on sex ed goes to subcommittee. This made me realize that the state is behind where it said it would be on the new standards; they should have been out for public comment by now. 

Charleston planning to switch bus contractors; Durham protests

You might remember that back in September, Charleston, SC was among the districts I cited that has been having ongoing issues with Durham Bus Services. Charleston had ongoing issues last year that were not resolved, continuing into this year. The main issue is very straightforward: the kids simply aren't getting to school on time.
Charleston County's contract with Durham is up at the end of this fiscal year, and the district has awarded the bid to First Student.  Durham is not happy about it:

Two days later, Durham filed an official appeal to the district’s decision, claiming that the school district “inappropriately applied” the bid’s evaluation criteria.
First Student’s five-year pricing proposal was more than $4.5 million greater than Durham’s, according to the appeal. Durham was awarded 60 points for its pricing submission, but First Student was awarded 57.87 points.
“The arbitrary and inconsequential point differential does not adequately assess the cost savings of the bid presented by (Durham),” the appeal read.

Yes, that means the district is willing to pay more money to First Student. Why?
Because the point is to get students to school on time. 

Framingham will declare breech of contract with Durham if no fix over January

As we're into our first deep freeze, when waiting for a late bus becomes downright dangerous, Framingham is taking the ongoing issues with Durham Bus seriously; at last night's Framingham School Committee meeting, the Committee decided there would be a breech of contract unless Durham fulfills a number of obligations by the end of January. Those are:

• When students return from winter break on January 2nd and everyday following, Durham must have at least 76 drivers show up and drive the 76 routes in both the am and pm. It is solely Durham’s responsibility to provide the correct number of drivers to meet the route requirements. They are falling short of their contractual obligation when they deliver students late to school because of missing drivers and they must remedy this basic breach of contract. It is their responsibility to determine how to do so, but ideas include bringing in drivers from other communities, raising hourly wages, subcontracting work (with written FPS permission per Article 11 of the contract), offering additional benefits, and providing individual case management and support to drivers calling out for work.
• If the situation does not improve during the month of January, financial penalties will begin for Durham in February. The City should not have to pay for substandard services. The City further reserves the right to seek reimbursement from Durham to compensate the City for all of the untimely services provided to date under the contract.
• On average, there have been approximately 150 children transported by Durham that are arriving late for school each day. Based on an average per pupil cost of more than $17,000 per year, this results in approximately $2,400 in lost instructional time each day.
• Durham must remove all snow from the roof of buses before routes commence. Durham must take appropriate steps to have staff in place at earlier times to complete this required safety measure. The Framingham Police Department has already warned Durham, and a second round of complaints occurred since. This must cease immediately or further steps will be taken if and when a third violation occurs.
• If improvements are not made by the end of January, the City reserves the right and will take steps to issue an invitation to bid in February 2020 for school bus transportation services starting in the 2020-21 school year. This action would mean that the city would be seeking a new bus contract one and a half years earlier than planned.

Framingham's contract with Durham goes through 2021, unless the breech is declared and the district goes to bid earlier.
If the district isn't receiving the service committed to, the terms of the contract aren't being fulfilled.

Meanwhile in Roanoke City...

In the ongoing saga of a district that also has Durham busing and associated issues, but the school board cares...
The headline on today's article really says most of it:

"Roanoke City School Board threatens termination for embroiled bus provider: Durham School Services took over school bus operations over the summer"

The article continues:

For the first time, after nearly three months of issues with Durham School Services, the school board mentioned possibly firing the company. Durham apologized once again for the issues, but the board made it clear it was not satisfied with the apology and demanded an action plan be delivered by Wednesday afternoon. Board members said firing the company would not be good for anyone, but they are running out of patience.

Remember: Roanoke City Schools have had Durham only since August...
After quoting Board member Laura Rottenborn, who, we know from previous articles, is herself a parent, the article continues:

...at Tuesday’s meeting, the school board, which at first was tolerant of Durham’s performance, sounded more like the parents that have been speaking at the podium during the school board’s meetings each month.

Echoing parental concerns...
And their bottom line?

The board said the bottom line is that it can’t take chances with kids.

For the record, I don't--and it isn't clear to me that Roanoke City knows--if "firing" a contractor is possible, and if so, how. 
But. 
Accountability starts at the top. 

What a difference busing accountability makes

Roanoke City Schools in Virginia, which you may remember has just started a contract with Durham School Services this school year without good results but with lots of attention from their school board, just got a tracking app.

Worcester, of course, was supposed to get a tracking app for our buses two contracts, or six years, ago.

When the elected board pays attention and calls to account, it makes a difference.

And speaking of Durham

The "saga"as the local press is calling it in Roanoke, Virginia--who have just started using Durham--around busing continues. Durham's efforts to get drivers has now launched a bidding war with the County now offering hiring incentives after Durham (driving for the city) did.
More telling--and a greater contrast with our own situation in Worcester--is in how the local Roanoke City school board has handled the situation:

Durham School Services vice-president John Ziegler was grilled by a number of the board members at the meeting and said the company has come up short.
"As Durham, and myself, we ended up in this situation because I didn't get the job done," Ziegler said. "I'm honest enough to say that."
The board had asked Durham to be at every one of their meetings until the bus saga is over, and Ziegler said that would be soon.

They spent 20 minutes on the issue at their latest meeting, and it will be a re-occuring item until the issue is fixed.
Why? Because:

...for five parents who spoke before the board Tuesday, it's too little, too late, saying that this has been their living nightmare.
"Are the standards you set for us not standards you are willing to apply to yourself and to the companies you hire for us?" parent Heather Lawson said. "The lack of communication, transparency and accountability so far has been beyond any form of acceptable."

And in Roanoke City, Virginia, Durham

...has just bumped their driver sign-on bonus to $2500:

Durham School Services, transportation provider for Roanoke City Schools, has increased its sign-on bus for qualified drivers to $2,500. Offer is good to 10/18/19. To apply: https://t.co/mkfVnNlRC0 pic.twitter.com/GVBuhEu4OW

— Roanoke City Schools (@RoanokeSchools) October 3, 2019

As the news coverage notes:

The transportation company's debut in Roanoke has been rocky, including late pickups, late drop-offs, personnel changes, and a slew of parent and driver complaints.

Meanwhile, this week in Cumberland, Rhode Island:

The latest chapter in the never-ending saga over whether Durham School Services will ever be able to properly deliver Cumberland students to school and home again left school officials shaking their heads.
School Committee members expressed consternation last Thursday, Sept. 26, after Supt. Bob Mitchell shared that preschool students who were dropped off for a visit to Adams Farm earlier that day, and were supposed to be picked up at a specific time, were left at the farm for significantly longer than they were supposed to be.
Member Ray Salvatore said he’s not one to nitpick over individual issues, but “this one’s really concerning.”
... As Durham representatives again blamed ongoing issues with staffing shortages and other issues, school board members tore into them, saying they’re tired of the same excuses being offered year after year.
Certainly there are some staffing issues and other matters of concern, said Mitchell, but he would also argue “that organizationally there are some issues as well.”

As would I.

And how are things in Pflugerville under self-operated buses?

Update from Texas:

“It was Durham School Services and they managed our routes and the employees. The bus drivers were all their employees, so they acted like any other contractor,” said Spence. “We told them what we expected and what was in our contracts, but they were the ones who implemented that. With that system, we were unable to really get that customer service that we want to stress here in Pflugerville ISD.”
Durham did send a letter parents at the time, saying they were experiencing an "unprecedented driver shortage" and had to combine many routes.
The district said it has improved that by adding 30 more bus drivers this year. With owning and operating their own fleet of buses now, the district has already seen a difference.
“So far, we've got positive feedback,” said Spence. “There's always a few learning curves along the way and starting the school year, but I spoke with our transportation department and we are now at a 99% on-time rate for all of our campuses, getting our kids to school on-time so things are going really well so far.”

Citing my sources on Durham

When I testified at last Monday's Worcester subcommittee meeting on the proposed renewal of the Durham bus contract, I referenced a number of articles from across the country about the service districts aren't receiving from the company. I also noted in my Thursday testimony that an article from that day had spoke of another district planning to move to self-operation from Durham; on Friday, another joined them. I thought it might be useful for others to have those, and other, links.

Roanoke City, Virginia has just started a contract with Durham; they have had a chaotic beginning of the year, which involved the company firing the local manager. Southern schools largely start earlier than we in the Northeast do, so they're a month in and still having issues. The quote that I read was from their school board member Laura Rottenborn, who at a meeting two weeks ago said:

“Wearing my parent only hat, not my board hat, I personally called Durham to find out where my child’s bus was and it took me 30 minutes to get an answer. And I as a parent find that unacceptable. And as a board member on behalf of all of our children in our school division, that is unacceptable,” Rottenborn said in the meeting.

They are now five weeks into school and the issues with Durham have just hit The Washington Post.

 Charleston County, South Carolina had 3000 bus complaints logged with the school district last year. As for what impact that had on students:

“This is the third week without a bus with no explanation of what has happened to the driver,” one bus complaint from a Thomas C. Cario parent said. “Why is the bus just “not coming?”
McCarthy said her daughter has had to miss school because a bus never showed up.
“She’s missed two days of school the whole day this year due to buses not being here on time,” McCarthy said. “I’ve tried to get them to tell me what time the bus is going to be there to pick her up so she can go home or go back out to wait for the bus and they can’t tell you what time. They just want them to wait outside.”

And it hasn't improved this year.

Central Dauphin schools (that's Harrrisburg), Pennsylvania counts this year as a new low.

Cumberland, Rhode Island officials are disgusted enough with Durham's services that they are planning now, two years before their contract is up, to work with other districts towards self-operation.

On Durham’s chronic issues returning this year, Mitchell said school officials are extremely frustrated.
“At some point, things seem to iron out,” he said. “To be honest, the performance up to this point has been disappointing and I think unacceptable.”

And while Worcester was renewing the contract with Durham, the Framingham School Committee was planning to move on self-operation:

School Committee Chairman Adam Freudberg, of District 4, said the district will start to look for bids from bus companies in January 2021. He urged the district to look into “what can be done here to strategically prepare and do all that work to look into bringing it in-house” soon.
“If bringing it in-house is the right thing for Framingham, let’s do that work right now to get ready for January of 2021,” said Freudberg.

Among the districts that has brought transportation into district operation is Pflugerville ISD in Texas:

PfISD officials said the transition will help the district retain quality control and save funds in the long term.
“One of the things we wanted to do as a district was really get a better control of this specific area,” PfISD Chief Operating Officer Ed Ramos said.

This was after videos of overcrowded buses with students sitting on the floor last spring during a contract that had been renewed in 2015 over the protests of parents.

And PS: no, it isn't some sort of magic insider information. I just know how to use Google.