Testimony before Council on FY25

non-testifying attendee at City Council tonight

Good evening, Mr. Chair,
My name is Tracy Novick and I live at 135 Olean Street here in Worcester.

While I am not here primarily to speak against items 10d, 11o, and 11p, please count me among the myriad of your constituents requesting that you stop wasting time and money on actively working to make our city less safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders, and, yes, motorists. The base attempts to play politics should be ended this evening and never be revived.

I am here to speak in support of President Verdier’s public petition 8v, the first time I have heard Worcester’s not meeting its constitutional mandate to fund schools for four years running mentioned on a Council agenda. It should shame all of us that it had to be done by the leadership of our teachers’ association.

But of course, Worcester has been here before. In fact, eleven years ago this evening, I was here to speak in support of then-Councilor O’Brien’s motion to fully fund the Worcester Public Schools in the FY14 budget.

Let us be clear: the mandate to fund public schools dates back to the 1993 Education Reform law, a law which was passed in part due to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Worcester schoolchildren by the late Mayor Levy.

Massachusetts General Law chapter 70 section 1 defines “a standard local funding effort applicable to every city and town in the Commonwealth.”

So, no, there is no “Worcester exception” for building high schools. Besides, Worcester is hardly the only city or town in the Commonwealth to be building schools.

Worcester is, however, eleventh from the bottom of 351 cities and towns in the percentage of our minimum budget that we are required to fund from local resources. Twenty-six cents of every local revenue dollar funds the schools, with another three for construction; that is also among the lowest applications of local revenue to schools of which I am aware.

I am aware of no local community in which the schools are facing the revenue crisis--and it is, to be clear, a revenue crisis--on the scale of the Worcester Public Schools in which there has been zero effort on the part of the local funding authority to increase allocations to meet or soften the hit.

As the statewide average in projected school funding for the current fiscal year is 125.5% of the required minimum, the vast majority of local funding authorities see the need in their school districts, and have risen to meet it.

And to again be clear: this city is not in the company of cities sitting on unused tax capacity out of fiscal prudence. It is in the small number of cities and towns that are not meeting their constitutional obligations to schoolchildren.

You make it impossible to effectively advocate for the state to further its support for Worcester’s schools when you don’t meet the minimum requirement locally. 

It is a ridiculous to need to request that our local funding authority not break the law. 

It is however the request I make tonight.

Agenda this week!

A quick note, first of all, on tomorrow night's Worcester City Council agenda: the City Manager's portion of the agenda requests Council authorization for use of the revolving funds. If you look at the backup, quite a number of these are WPS accounts, many associated with Worcester Technical High School programs.  Revolving funds set aside the money brought in by a program for the use of that program.

The Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday at 7 pm. You can find the agenda here. 
The report of the superintendent this week is the administration's response regarding an exam, or limited admission, or, as it's called on the agenda, "high school for advanced learners." There is as yet no backup; I'll post it once we get it.
We have a number of recognitions and thanks coming forward, including students who are in the Central Mass Senior Music Festival.
Miss Biancheria would like to discuss the use of silent lunches.
She is also looking for an update on the School Facilities Master Plan (still in subcommittee).
We are being asked to approve two prior year payments: one to a nurse for $5,698.70. and one to the Stetson School for $20,381.22.
We have a report on the Level 4 work being done at Elm Park Community School. 

We will be having an executive session before the meeting for two items: one for an update on negotiations with cafeteria workers, and one to open negotiations for a renewed contract with Superintendent Boone (while her contract runs through June, the School Committee must inform her of intent to not renew by January). 

Here's what undercalculating the foundation budget looks like

I understand that it is possible that you didn't read the entirety of the backup or all of my notes from our F&O meeting on Tuesday. If so, you may have missed some vitally important numbers that we talked about in the meeting.
As the state moves towards reconsidering the foundation budget, we thought it important to establish some priorities that Worcester has on this question. In doing so, Mr. Allen pulled together some calculations that are, I'd say, eye-popping.

1. Health insurance: By WPS estimation, our foundation budget is undercalculated on the health insurance assumption by $25 million each year (actual spending is $55 million; it is assumed at $30 million within the foundation budget).


2. Special education: By WPS estimation, our foundation budget undercalculates the cost of special education by more than $35 million each year (through underestimating the number of children served as well as the cost of special education; actual spending is $61 million; foundation budget is $31 million).


3. Inflation factor: in FY10, the state moved what quarter they used for the inflation factor, costing schools statewide more than $300 million that they never made up. The current inflation factor is based on spending by local and state governments, creating a vicious cycle: should states and cities spend less, the inflation factor is less, resulting less spending the next year, and so forth. Currently, the Worcester Public Schools are unfunded within inflation at $10 million each year. The inflation factor needs to be tied to something that doesn't result in this ridiculous cycle (and the missing year should be accounted for, as well). 

Note that in these cases, this is a straightforward incorrect calculation of actual costs by the state, a calculation that--because the Worcester Public Schools are funded right at, or just below the minimum--results in our having to move money that should be allocated towards other accounts to these. It throws off the entire budget.
We need, as Mr. Allen put it on Tuesday, "a fundamental recalculation" of the foundation budget. 

Closing out FY14

Foley: giving back 48 cents this year
cannot overspend the budget,, but don't want to leave money behind
Allen: final report is in a different format to provide you with the adopted budget from last year, compared to final expenditures
memo is here
"really what happened from June when the School Committee approved the budget to when the fiscal year closed"
closure of Spirit of Knowledge balanced out by increase of autism services
spent more on transportation (via on McKinney-Vento), thus increasing the city's NSS gap
put that in context with the answer from the previous meeting
Novick: bring some realism to the notion that we're saving money on utilities due to ESCo, as we are not
Foley: ESCo quality of life repairs
Allen: chillers, leaking roofs; avoided having to use MSBA for those repairs
actual savings: still working with the city on how those can be quantified
can we attribute a reduction of what we would be paying otherwise?

Finance and Operations: auditors' reports

The full agenda is here
The auditors reports are here
Allen: these are the FY13 reports
Mr. Hunt: internal controls
relates to federal award programs; have to check if spend over $500,000 in federal funds
threshhold for compliance auditing is 3% of city total of federal grants
"overall eleven findings:
condensed down into similar findings
additional review of applications of eligibility guidelines: child nutrition
indirect costs: city takes 3%, we have passed 1%
RTTT: spending of funds within 30 days of receipt
"not an exact science, don't expect it to be perfect, would have liked to see less time"
suspension and debarrment: contractors have to be checked
none of the vendors tested were suspensed or debarred; need to have a check in place
Head Start: charging of salaries, breakdown of salaries in terms of what they are ccharged to
need distribution reports (time that person spends on various grants)
"I can tell you that we're in the review process of FY14; will see indirect costs again"
Foley: could be found again
Hunt: report in January, finalized in March; could have been resolved
Foley: as long as we're aware again
indirect cost recovery...grants come through the state to the district?
confused as to why the city says their agent is HUD
Hunt: agency through which you receive the most direct funding is the cognascent agent
Novick: saple size of school lunch?
Hunt: 25, 40 or 60 are sizes
Allen: DESE recommended the centralization of meal application process
initially approved at central level
state believes that will cut down on the error rate
about 16,000 students are eligibility
11,000 through other state eligibility
remainder through income application directly through 6000 (and those are what were check through audit)

Agreed upon procedures
(are the rules being followed)
essentially, a few lines cleaned up
"encountered no difficulties"

Central Mass Special Ed Collaborative report

Note that Vice Chair Monfredo is chairing
We've got the quarterly report as well as a renewal of contract with the Collaborative.
Novick: note that the collaborative is seeing increased numbers of children with autism and trauma history (as are WPS generally)
O'Connell: FY14 operativing budget projecting a use of surplus of slightly over $1 million. Allen notes that it is being used to freeze our tuition; "it's a benefit to the sending districts"
Biancheria: PBIS, positive effect on their behavior, children talking about it, would like to receive more information about how that is working for them.

On contract: Boone: have been collaborative agreements in the past, first agreement established 1975
one of the agreements of the new collaborative law
state department provides "what they call technical assistance, what we call 'okay, we have to do this'"
Webster looking at this next week
contract here for School Committee approval
O'Connell notes that most collaboratives have many members, unlike ours, which has just Worcester and Webster. Most of the action comes from Worcester. Should we have a weighted board, "this is bascially a Worcester organization with a touch of Webster"
Boone: understanding that the law provides for a one-for-one representation
"we've never found an issue where either Worcester or Webster felt under or overrepresented"
apply overall fiscal and leadership hats over the program
O'Connell: tuition rate is a factor; "annual per pupil rate less 15%" for districts with fewer than ten students; are we giving Webster a discount?
Boone: Webster has more than ten students; tuition rates are driven by services needed by students
non-member districts "buy seats" for students that are in need of services
O'Connell: why do we have the 15% discount then?
Boone: it's in the law; different calculation for districts that fall below ten students; much of the concern about fiscal concerns and organizational concerns
O'Connell: support adoption, but contact state around weighted composition; would like notice of the board meetings
Boone: meet open meeting law requirements, meetings posted, agenda posted

Mary Baker, Executive Director of collaborative
getting contract through state, "arduous at best"
"spirit of chapter 43 is that every member would have an equal say"

Novick: could we see the fee structure?
Sure
Ramirez: similarly, why is the fee structure not laid out in the contract?
Boone: fees are set as part of their budget
Treasurer has to certify that we have set a fee structure and that it has been provided in the budget

contract approved

The Worcester School Committee meets TOMORROW!

We have the July meeting of the Worcester School Committee tomorrow at 4 at City Hall. (Different time, same location) You can find the agenda here.
We have a two-fer on congratulating and thank the Ecotarium.
There is no report of the Superintendent; note that this means that we are not voting on next year's standardized test plans this month. I suspect this is because we have several members out for this meeting; I haven't heard yet when we will vote.
We have two reports from subcommittees: Accountability (my notes here and here) and our joint committee with City Council (notes here and here).
We have two reports coming back on instructional assistants: the number of hours per school that they work; and how they are paid when they cover a class.
We have two donations coming in for Worcester Tech.
We're being asked to accept a grant for $94,279 for machine shop equipment at Worcester Tech, and a grant for $10,000 for a writing program at Worcester Arts Magnet.
We have an item to work on the bids for transportation in Finance and Operations, as our transportation contracts are up this year.
We are being asked to amend the social media policy.
Mr. Monfredo is asking us to consider putting ads on school buses.
Mr. O'Connell is referring the changes in Erate (as previously discussed in F&O) be referred to F&O.
Mr. Monfredo is commending those responsible for the redone library at Worcester East Middle, and asking reminding us of World Smile Day (October 3).
Ms. Ramirez calls our attention to Jennifer Cordero for being selected for the Hispanic Youth Research and Leadership program at the University of New Mexico.
The city auditor is requesting that we pass the Misc Ed OM account again, specifying the three accounts into which it goes. 

We have our usual "now that we've passed the budget, we might need to make transfers" item, heading to F&O.

Mr. O'Connell calls to the attention of our PTOs and such that there is a new way of being recognized as a 501(c)3. 

He also wants to thank those who educated our students on solar energy.

It is time to appoint someone to represent us on the collaborative board (this tends to be the superintendent).

Miss Biancheria would like additional information on the new regs on explusion and suspension and its implementation. 

She'd also like an update on the Worcester East Middle School science labs.

Mr. Monfredo wants to know if the attendance campaign last year worked.

I think we should talk to the state about the foundation formula (now that they have a committee considering it), the City Council about the capital budget, and the City Council about the city's investment in education. 

I'm also sending the dress code (the student dress code, from the student handbook) to Governance, and I want to talk about implementation, too. More on that tomorrow. 

And we have a prior year payment of $4,166.75 we're being asked to authorize. 

There is NO executive session.

Tomorrow at 4! 

Here come the marathon meetings: School Committee meets June 5

The first of our two long ones is this coming Thursday, June 5.
Remember that our June meetings are effectively double-headers: budget at 4, regular session at 7.
Thus, beginning at 4pm, we will be considering the FY15 Worcester Public Schools budget, beginning with the School Committee account (for our salaries, set by city charter) and continuing on from there.
We'll break at six for our executive session, and come back at 7pm for the regular agenda.

On the agenda:

• honoring the teacher of the year and finalists (as announced last night)
• recognizing the students who are going to the international DECA conference
• The report of the Superintendent is the mid-cycle report (no back-up as yet...)
• We have a boatload of recognitions and congratulations on this agenda, so I'd recommend you take a look at them all!
• And speaking of which, we are being asked to vote acceptance of the donations from EOS for our universal school breakfast programs. 
• We're being asked to accept the $75,000 state planning grant for Claremont Academy's innovation plan.
• We're being asked to accept the $51,753 state grant for math and science (which looks like it's for professional development? But I'll ask).
• We're being asked to accept the $94,292 state grant for academic support and learning (which is for getting kids to pass MCAS? I think?).
• We have the annual request that the Superintendent be allowed the discretion to transfer funds as needed within the budget to close the fiscal year.
• Mr. O'Connell wants to review the second grade pedestrian safety training with an eye to expansion (as yet it's a pilot). 
• He's also, per the opinion received this week from the Mass Association of School Committees that this is a policy decision, suggesting that the Worcester School Committee vote to use the MCAS rather than the PARCC next spring. The early submission deadline on that is June 30.
• I have three items, all asking that we look at what it would mean to bump back secondary school start times (through the research, through the impact on teaching and learning, and through operations), all heading off to subcommittees.
• And I've asked for what the calculation would look like if the foundation budget funded actual enrollment of special education, rather than the flat percentage that it does now.

Springfield Public Schools got a budget last night

in other words, yes, yes, I do read other districts' budgets in my spare time...
The Springfield School Committee received their proposed FY15 budget last night, and it's an interesting comparison, if you're from Worcester, as, with about 26,000 students, Springfield is just a bit larger of a district than Worcester is.
Unfortunately, they haven't yet posted the proposed FY15 budget online, but, putting the news article together with the current year budget is enough to give us some insights.
For this (FY14) year, the Springfield Public Schools general fund budget is $357,868,724; compare that with our general fund budget of $297,360,533. (In both cases, that's not including grants and other revenue; the above news article is including grants in the number used.) The difference in that bottom line is not due to Springfield funding their schools at an above minimum this year--they hit zero on Net School Spending--but due to the difference in the population they serve. Springfield has a poverty rate of 87.2% of their students; Worcester's student poverty rate is 73%. As the foundation budget calculation increases funds for low income students, Springfield's higher number of that population yields a significantly higher budget.
I found their solving their budget gap by cutting central administration positions interesting, so I took a look at their administrative table of organization, which is...large.
That is in keeping with the chart you may remember from last year on administration:

Note that the above uses the state's division for administration, so it compares like to like. 
With a student population of 1000 more students, Springfield is spending close to three times what Worcester is. Even with a 20% cut in that line item, Springfield is going to be spending more than double what Worcester does on internal school administration. So Springfield may well be able to manage a cut here; Worcester cannot do likewise.
What's also interesting about that comparison is Springfield and the schools renegotiated their administrative rate in 2012-13, going from the percentage of the city budget charge (the system Worcester operates under) to a per-pupil charge (generally seen as making more sense for large urban districts). Worcester spent $4.9 million in FY13 on city administrative charges; Springfield spent $3.1 million, and, if you look at their Schedule 19 (the list of what the city is handling) had substantially more services handled by the municipality.

I'll be taking a look at their FY15 budget once it's up, and post if I find more.

Quarterly report

report here
Allen: bottom line has not changed
projecting about a $300,000 deficit in all accounts
not a concern that administration has
summer school starts in July so it's on next fiscal year
day by day subs in deficit
workers compensation: "no surprise...has run over in every year"
this year will budget "more closely in line with actual spending"
vehicle maintenance: $35,000 in deficit,, mostly due to price of fuel, also maintenance
utility account: new city electricity contract is a 10% increase over previous, also not seeing ESCo savings show up
Foley: do we know why we are not receiving ESCo savings?
Allen: working with the city on those; perhaps as part of future report, can give some detail on that
"we're hoping that we'll start seeing some savings on that"
Foley asks for a follow up report
"I suppose you don't want us to tinker with workers' compensation for the budget"
Ramirez: increase in autistic students? which line item?
personnel services is in district, tuition
Novick: is FY15 based on seeing ESCo savings? No.
instructional materials still frozen with $300,000 in it? to balance
principals have asked that if funds are going to frozen, freeze them up front so that it's equal

Finance and Operations meets Monday!

As a sort of pregame to the public hearing on FY15, we're having our quarterly Finance and Operations meeting. You can find the agenda here.

• We're getting an update on the Blue Ribbon Technology report.
• We've got a report on the projected cost of reopening a school building.
• We have a report coming back on how much it would cost to expand instrument lessons to all remaining elementary schools. (short answer: a bit more than an additional music teacher)
• And it's time for the third quarter budget report! Plus the update on all accounts! If you want a better idea of how the WPS budget works over the course of a year, these are good to read. It shows how things have changed since the School Committee passed the budget last June, and it often gives an idea of what sorts of changes are going to be required for the next year.
• Ever wondered which schools don't have playgrounds on site or just off-site? I did.
• The query around additional alternative placements is being referred to the FY15 budget.
• In response to an item on space at All Saints and St. Paul's, we have another reminder of Chapter 30B (that's the Mass General Law that requires any such procurement of space must go out to bid).
• We have a report on the process of requesting school repair.
• And we have to vote on raising the school lunch price to $1.75 for next year (with explanatory memos). 

5:30 pm, room 410 of the Durkin Administration Building (take the elevator to the fourth floor and follow the signs through School Nutrition) 

And should you be planning on attending the public hearing on the FY15 budget at 7 pm Monday night, you can find all documents released regarding it in in the FY15 budget folder on the WPS website. 

Governor files supplemental budget with FULL funding for charter reimbursement

(h/t Julie; thanks!)
Governor Patrick filed a supplemental spending bill on Thursday that includes full funding for charter reimbursement!
A few reminders (that I needed myself):

• this is for THIS (FY14) fiscal year; FY15 is still in the House.
• even if this passes, it would come through for Worcester as local aid. It would then have to be appropriated by the City Council to the Worcester Public Schools. Were it not, it would increase the local aid number...which would increase the amount by which the city is under the minimum local contribution.

We didn't meet Net School Spending

Of course, we knew this, but here's the letter from Commissioner Chester.

It's in the budget

Class enrollment, teacher numbers...it's in the budget!
And there have not been any changes in staffing this year, with the exception of the addition of an assistant principal at North.
The back cover fell off of mine this week; that's how often I use it!

How much is the charter school reimbursement underfunded?

Just heard this number today: the charter school reimbursement is currently funded 62% for FY14.
How much is that short?
Were the reimbursement fully funded by the state, it would be $350,000 for the Worcester Public Schools.

Meritorious Budget Award!

John Crafton, Executive Director of MASBO, back to speak
noting that he was here a few months ago for Mr. Allen's Distinguished Eagle: "I was here before for one remarkable achievement and I'm back this time for another remarkable achievement...'
"You know, it's a big deal...it's really a big deal"
the national standard for school district budget
only three other districts in the nation were first time recipients
only six districts in Massachusetts have received the award in fifteen years since the award was started
Very difficult requirements, a lot of knowledge of technology
trained reviewers who inspect that budget from every angle
"once you successfully create this budgetary format., you can be sure your annual budget will pass the litmous test" every year
Must be:

1. Clear: "all too often we see budget that are composed primarily of numbers...clarity is akin to transparency"
2. Conciseness: "you don't have to read the entire budget to know what it is all about"
3. Completeness: "it includes all of the funds that there are that go to education in the community: grants, revolving funds..."

cites Biden: "don't tell me what you value; show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value"

about 1/10 of 1% actual apply for this award each year; only about 1/10 of those districts are first time applicants

Remember how I told you that you could understand the budget?

The Association of School Business Officials International agrees: the Worcester Public Schools have been awarded the Meritorious Budget Award for our FY14 budget! Among the comments from the reviewers was this:

The budget is a fine document, which includes a wealth of information in graphic and narrative form. The document is user-friendly for the average taxpayer with lots of data presented in different forms to meet the needs of varied users. 

Congratulations to Mr. Allen, Ms. Consalvo, and the WPS budget staff! Nice work.

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!

Budget at CPPAC

I'm not going to liveblog the entire budget presentation as you had that here. You can also see that presentation here.

Posting as we go

Allen: show what the budget looks like at this time, but no recommendations at this time; those will come over the next month or so

Numbers to crunch for Thursday

While we don't yet have a full FY15 budget projection presentation (which I suspect may have something to do with this), there's plenty of numbers to crunch this weekend.
We've got the current (not October 1) classroom by classroom enrollment--seriously useful stuff, as these are the numbers that administration and principals are looking at as they're doing their first run-through of FY15 for building budgets. Now you have the same information that they do!
We have the full local aid numbers for Governor Patrick's proposed FY15 budget, with a comparison to the FY14 budget as passed.
We have the full calculation of the Net School Spending compliance, as we talked about earlier this week. Note the nearly 50/50 split on that $7.6 million administration line. WPS only controls half of it. Also, someone asked this week if charter school tuition counts towards Net School Spending; it does, and here you can see it: Line 12, City side, is the $26 million to charter schools.
And, to boot, we have the Governor's proposed budget as it pertains to WPS, including breakdowns in Chapter 70 aid and local contribution. If you're looking closely, you can see that we're all going to want to go back and check in with the "Determining Required Local Contribution" section of "Demystifying the Chapter 70 Formula" from Mass Budget. We haven't had that apply recently (possibly since the rewrite in 2007?) in Worcester, so go read it now. And if you're confused, I'm sure we're all going to go through it a bunch of times before June! Baseline, though, is that it represents good news on Worcester's local economy. 
As always with budget: much more to come!