Myths of the WPS budget: BUSTED!

As we head into March and the schools  hear a bit more about how the district budget will affect them, I suspect we'll begin also to hear some of the myths about the Worcester Public Schools budget that come back every year.

Let's take care of those now.

Myth #1: "Every year they say that there is a HUGE gap and every year it is magically taken care of by June."
To begin with, we don't always start off with a deficit: this time last year, we didn't have a structural deficit, and we were close to break even in 2012; the last time we had a structural deficit was in 2011.
More importantly, we are required to pass a balanced budget: our expenses must equal the money coming in. Any deficit does not magically vanish: it is made up by cuts. So, for example, back in 2011, the structural deficit was filled through cutting teaching positions, skilled trade positions, 2 finance office clerical staff positions, a school plant manager position, and merging two vocational admin positions.
It doesn't just happen. We as a Committee don't have the power to increase the funds coming in; we can only reallocate what we get, and administration has the harsh job of making recommendations that will make the budget balance.
This is why I'm concerned not to be hearing more from parents and community members about the FY15 budget. As presented to us in January, we have a deficit of $27 million. That isn't magically going to vanish. It's going to mean cuts unless the money coming in increases, which can only happen through advocacy with the state and city (more on that to come).

Myth #2: "Worcester spends too much on education already."
For FY14, 35 cents of each tax revenue dollar went to the Worcester Public Schools. This is not a substantial amount compared to other communities. Moreover, as my colleague Mr. Monfredo points out in Worcester Magazine today, Worcester remains far behind the rest of the state when it comes to covering the real costs of education by funding above foundation: we're in the bottom 2%.

Myth #3:  "Too much money goes to administration."
We've now heard this one so often that it got its own slide last year. The vast majority of the money spent on administration--for FY13, the budget is $11.3 million--is for school-based administrators. That's principals and assistant principals.
As far as I know, no one is actually complaining that we have too many of those, so I assume that the complaint is actually about central administration, which for FY13 is budgeted at $2.5 million. That's somewhere around eight-tenths of a percent of the entire budget. It's also, if you see the chart above, a number that puts us right in the middle on administrative spending, and that's when we include the cityside administration costs over which we have no control.

Myth #4: "It's a black hole: I don't know where the money goes."
The whole FY14 budget--every last nickel of it--is here online.If you want to know how much each specific school costs, it's in there. If you want to know how much we spend account by account, it's in there. If you want to know what comes in as grants and how that's spent, it's in there.
I have a sneaking suspicion that in some cases this is really a bit of "math is hard" at bottom. The numbers are big, no question. How some of it gets figured out can be, at your first time through, pretty overwhelming. But there are lots of us, myself very much included, who are happy to go through this with anyone who wants some help figuring it out. So please don't give up: give it a shot.


Next up: what you can do!

Updated Net School Spending report

Sorry, late posting on this one.
The state has sent us an updated NSS report. An item on special education tuition was not in the previously posted sheet, changing the carryover from FY12 from $1,500,195 to $1,353,709, a difference of $146,487.
What does that mean?
The City entered FY13 $1.3 million under in Net School Spending (from the previous year).
We now are $799,207 under Net School Spending.
(Yes, this does include last Tuesday's transfer.)

I am sure this will be a topic of tomorrow's joint meeting: 11 am, 4th floor, Durkin Administration Building.

JOINT MEETING POSTED

There will be a joint meeting of the Education subcommittee of the City Council and the Finance & Operations meeting of the School Committee next Wednesday, December 19, at 11 am in the 4th floor conference room of the Durkin Administration Building, 20 Irving Street.

We know it's annoying that this is during the day, but there's been a request for a finance official from the state, and we have to work around their schedule.

Public meeting that will be live broadcast on Channel 11!

Should you wish the photo

Here's the final page of the calculations from DESE on Worcester's Net School Spending.

Hot off the presses: DESE on the Worcester Public Schools foundation budget

Just in from the state: Worcester's Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance for FY12
(I have a photo, but my phone balks at posting within City Hall.)
The final analysis?
SHORTFALL IN BUDGETED FY13 Net School Spending: $945,694

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

The Worcester School Committee meets tomorrow night at 7 pm. You can find the agenda here.
We are honoring both Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (for their work this year at Chandler Elementary) and South High (for their wellness award).
The report of the superintendent is a report back from the Blue Ribbon Panel on technology. If you have an interest in technology in education, please take a look and tell me what you think!
Reports are coming back from:

• Finance and Operations
• Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports
• Governance and Employee Issues
• the Ad-Hoc Committee on the exam and/or IB school

We have a few appointments coming through.

We are opening negotiations with our secretaries.

Mr. O'Connell has filed an item to consider civics mastery, including possibly having students take the U.S. Naturalization test.

We are being asked to receive a donation for McGrath School from Unibank for leveled readers.

We are being asked to receive donations on behalf of Claremont Academy for their trip to Spain this year.

We are being asked to receive a grant for family literacy for $5000. 

We are being asked to receive a grant from the Boston Foundation in Architecture for $1920 for an after school club at Worcester Arts Magnet School. 

We are forwarding letters to our distinguished alumni. 

I'm asking that we have regular meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance and Operations with the City Council's Education subcommittee (anyone wonder why?)

We're congratulating the Burncoat quadrant on the "Burncoat to Broadway" concert.

Miss Biancheria and I are requesting that we review the school accountability plans (in the Accountability subcommittee).

We are being asked to approve spending for FY12 in the amount of $20,383.21 . 

7pm, tomorrow night at City Hall!

closing out FY12

We're closing the previous fiscal year with a balance of $2,723 (out of a $273 million budget).
Comments here from Foley had how close we run this closely.

Central Mass Special Education Collaborative

audited for FY11
$4.5m in accounts, but had not entered encumberances for the summer
and had not entered OPEB
was (after that) $1.4m
surplus from last year; charge to Worcester is frozen, thus using up $1m of the surplus
currently undergoing an FY12 budget
Allen: that $1m freeze will go away; sped account will go up by $1m PLUS growth
one time freeze used to save teaching positions
double increase for next year
Foley: is this the first time the state has conducted an audit?
Dio: first time the state has paid any attention to collaboratives since their inception
5 out of 28 looked at...finished and moved on
issues uncovered at Merrimack were outside of anyone else's operating experiences
Foley asks how often we have people here: Allen says it seems like every week
audits should be instructive
Dio comments that most collaborative directors locally have been public school employees and are familiar with what is required of them, followed that even as not required

...and back to our regular meeting

...with the National Anthem performed by Canterbury Street School students.
Approving prior fiscal year payments for some stipends that hadn't been appropriately placed in the system.
Some questions here from Mr. O'Connell on if we can avoid this (as per usual)
Allen comments that the advantage of having a homegrown system is that we can update the system, but that it's also a data-entry issue.
approved

General business, including the audit of the collaborative

Going off to subcommittee:
the annual "changes to the budget"
resolutions for MASC's annual delegates meeting
a Title 1 Parent Advisory Council
more intensive standards for PE
update on implementation on Common Core
...and a bowling club (no word on candlepin or otherwise, though Mr. Monfredo tells me he's a candlepin bowler)
Going to F&O is a meeting with the special ed collaborative to discuss the state auditor's findings: Foley "have an obligation as a school committee under our fiduciary responsibilities..audit to help refine our practices"
Boone: "a number of changes in terms of the governance structure...first board meeting"
updates from our perspective
Allen: "certainly support these audits..." annual audits extensive lists
internal controls
one on retirement contributions will have a financial impact at some point; collaborative reviewing
"excessive fund balance" transitioning their old, cash, basis, to an accrual basis: an accounting issue is being corrected, recreating their FY11 statements now based on modified accrual accounting, unbalance was based on summer salaries
"we insisted on the tuition freeze which saved us a million dollars" (FY13)
"essentially reducing the balance by $1.2m, $1m is a trust fund account, $1.5 tuition freeze ($1m for us)...expenses of (SS) liability will go to the member districts"
"no further action other than the $1m tuition freeze...we want to know what the retirement liability is going to be"
financial statements will be created for FY12 after finished with FY11
"How to best use...the fund balance?"
"don't want to receive the benefit one time...smooth tuition freeze going forward...collaborative does need some balance going forward"
"don't want to be in the situation of a midyear tuition increase"
O'Connell...focus should be collaborative exists to charge what it needs to provide its programs
board needs to be watching this
suggests that F&O consider requiring regular copies of budget, minutes of board meetings,
should we revisit the agreement with the collaborative: is the role of Webster disproportionate to the size of Webster in this collaborate? What should we be doing with this collaborative? Is it meeting our needs?

Recess spending

If you're wondering where that $1 per pupil for recess supplies went this year, here's the list.
And we've recommended that principals consult with students on spending for this coming year (which includes that money again)!

Quarterly report

Foley: "no big surprises"
Allen: "a successful fiscal close" in June
administration salaries: projected deficit due to school based administrative positions, having to fill them in
plus summer earnings of principals that are retiring
grant reallocations: IAs, in particular
special education bus drivers paid out of administrative clerical overtime, often underfunded account

Finance and Operations meeting tonight, 5 pm

The Standing Committee on Finance and Operations meets tonight at 5 pm at the Durkin Administration Building, 4th floor.
Please note that we will not be taking up the FY13 budget at this meeting.
The agenda is now up here. 
In addition to the usual quarterly account updates, we are talking about the auditors' (plural) reports, getting a round up on security cameras, looking at school signage (particularly around entrances), considering a (required) five cent increase to school lunch prices, and considering an update to the playground installation policy.
There's also an item looking at the condition of our playgrounds .
I would welcome comments on school signage and on school playgrounds! Please send them in!
Liveblog to come!

A slogan to run on

Well, now here's a slogan to print in all in the re-election materials:


Leominster mayor: Low school spending not my fault

Rowlands said the School Department is $246,000 under the net school spending, and that Leominster is one of only 20 communities in the state that failed to meet spending needs. 

Richard said Mazzarella's administration is not interested in blaming anybody but insisted the problem is not at City Hall.
Mazzarella's administration develops the budget, and the School Department has autonomy for managing and spending the money, Richard said."The budget I submitted to the City Council met net school spending, so we at least met, if not exceeded, net school spending, so it was really a spending issue," Mazzarella said.

So one of two things happened here: either the Council really didn't pass a budget that didn't meet Net School Spending requirements (which--ahem--has been known to happen) OR the city did meet NSS, but the schools didn't spend all that was allocated to them.
Guess who the one person who would be partly responsible in EITHER case, though?
Yep. Mayor Mazzarella. He chairs both committees, both of which have ultimate financial responsibility.


Can we agree that cutting it so close on NSS might not be the best way to deal with funding public education? That we're not really supposed to be in some fight to the death over who can possibly spend the least amount on educating the next generation? Particularly when we know that the foundation budget (which is the calculation that gives us NSS) is underfunded statewide by at least $2.1 billion?


with thanks for the link to one without a blog. 

Commissioner Chester on Worcester's not meeting net school spending

Sorry, I only have these on paper, so I scanned these. Posted as PDFs. 


Here's the Commissioner's actual letter from November 2011:

The calculation for FY11:

And the calculation for (at that time budgeted) FY12:

Charts and charts!

If you were watching Council tonight, you may have seen me testify in response to this item from the city administration on Worcester Public Schools funding. I've posted the charts that I put together and handed out to the Council below. (As per usual, if you click on them, they'll get bigger.)

WPS funding sources for FY12. The bulk of the funding comes from the state via Chapter 70 funds, as per the Ed Reform Act agreement that the state would pick up the bulk of school funding for urban districts. The city funds 29.4% of WPS operational funds this year.

Most of the state aid provided to the municipality for FY12.
Steady and increasing.

...due to this: increased enrollment in the Worcester Public Schools.
Not only that, but more students with ELL and special education needs, thus higher rates
 of funding needed to meet their needs.

The next two charts were from the Mass Budget and Policy Center presentation: Figure 11 and 12 here. These demonstrate the gaps in the foundation budget (that funding does not meet costs) for most accounts, and that costs of health insurance and special education have greatly exceeded the foundation budget assumptions. The second chart demonstrates how most districts have met their needs: by funding over foundation. Leading to:

...a comparison of Worcester's spending above required minimum compared to several other Gateway Cities.
You'll see that Worcester is below all, and in fact below zero for two years running.

In case you couldn't see the Worcester line clearly, a chart of Worcester's spending above required minimum.
We're at -0.1 percent for the second year in a row.

You can find these charts as PDFs here.

Governor's FY13 Budget

I'm sure we'll be getting more analysis as the week goes on, but right now we know that Governor Patrick is proposing $210,364,137 in Chapter 70 aid for Worcester for FY13. That's in comparison with $201,135,279 for FY12.
That's only the state side, 'though: the state has up the summary of contribution for city and state: city's minimum contribution for FY13 is $88,586,175, which is up from $85,772,826 for FY12. Remember, the city's contribution is based on local wealth and tax revenue calculations.
Together, those make up the net school spending amount for FY13, which is $298,950,312; note that number includes charter school assessments (which are also up, and which I don't yet have). That's looking about where our budget update from last week put us.

I will give you more information as I have it.

reducing the budget

O'Connell asks what the effect will be on classrooms of the IAs
"does this make a reduction in what we need?"
attrition, says Boone: "sum total of vacancy"
(money we saved by those jobs being open for a bit of time)
This is (again) what happens when the state Board of Ed authorizes additional charter schools and the Legislature level-funds the charter assessment budget: there's not enough money.

Additionally, should the charter numbers see any change (which they might, comparing projected enrollment to bodies in seats), the money will come back AFTER the Council votes the tax assessment (and thus the budget, finally), tonight. Thus any money that comes back, comes back to the city as free cash; it does not come to the schools.
Asking for a report on whatever change there is, once administration knows, so we can follow that money to City Hall (and ask for it back!)




somewhat related: questions around the city not meeting net school spending requirements
They haven't for FY11, and this year's budget does not make up the difference, as they are legally obligated to, so they are two years in abeyance.
The superintendent will be speaking to the city manager on this; we're forwarding this information to incoming City Council. Important to meet your legal obligations!

Worcester School Committee meets Monday

The Worcester School Committee has their (postponed) meeting on Monday at 5 pm at Worcester Technical High School. You can find the agenda here.
 Note that the several-times-held report of the superintendent on teacher evaluation is one of two reports; the other is a class size report for secondary schools.
We have a report coming in from Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports (they met Tuesday night; report not yet up).
We have some mid-year retirements/transfers/hirings.
We've received a list of who is on school site councils. Note that these are also now up on each school's website.
There are several requests for reports and honors.
We also, unfortunately, are having to reduce the budget. You'll find the report here. The short version (as I've mentioned here before) is that the Legislature level-funded the charter reimbursement account in the same year that the Board of Education added sixteen new charter schools, nine of which opened last year. There thus was not enough money in the account to go around. The state assured us on Tuesday that they thought that gap would either be smaller or close entirely; that will come too late for us, as we have to have solid numbers now.We have some money we're saving on utilities this year; otherwise, the money is coming from IAs, custodians, and instructional supplies: in other words, it's coming straight out of our classrooms.

report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Operations

You've got most of this already...so minimal notes from me...
I will note that the votes we are taking tonight on the Statements of Interests are heading to City Council for Tuesday night's meeting, with our hope of getting them in next week (?).
Mr. Foley notes that Nelson Place has already been voted and forward to MSBA (thus it will not be voted tonight)
O'Connell stops the vote to ask if the Worcester East Middle vote includes the auditorium. It certainly does!
And note that many of the Green Repair window projects are at the schools either built or repaired during the PCB era.
And yes, MSBA does need an individual vote (phrased correctly) for each school submitted.