September meeting of the Board of Education: opening remarks

The agenda is here. The livestream is here. Posting starts at 8:30 or thereabouts

Meeting called to order at 8:34 by Chair Sagan
"Happy New Year, as several of you have said"
"I actually got one email from somebody saying, 'I can't wait til you're all back!'"
(laughter as Sagan denies that it came from a member of the Board or from his family)
Sagan welcomes Maya Matthews as the new student rep of the year
Sagan notes that this will be Riley's first full school year
goals not only for Commissioner's report card but also priorities that he wants us to focus on
have been talking to Early Ed and Higher Ed on "more evidenced-based policy making"
"great deal more data that will look" over a long period of time
"we're not really sure a lot of the time" when making policies
"look at some set of outcomes in a new way"
other states are doing this "and may even be ahead of us"
do an outside study on what else is going on in the country; will come back and let you know what we've learned
work with other boards in an interdisciplinary way
"link some of at least economic outcomes with what experiences you had and what schools you went to"

Commissioner Riley:
update on explosions in the Merrimack Valley
"could have been a lot worse...we did lose a student"
timing...it could have been even worse
thank those who have contributed
Eversource went school by school and cleared the schools
shelters have been closing as families have been able to go home
"difficult week or so and a lot of work ahead to fix the problem"
update on case on Holyoke case on translation; optimistic on progress
school resource officer model MOU; being well-planned for all contingencies
superintendent, police chief, fire chief being coordinated with response to emergencies
MCAS results end of September
"asked Board to reserve judgment" on new accountability system

Peyser: pending supplemental budget (for FY18)
"turns out there were some additional resources available in FY18"
Governor has asked for "some significant new dollars" to be put towards education; $70M to school safety
of that $20M to physical plant; $40M to behavioral and mental health services
"to prevent the kinds of school shootings we've seen in other parts of the country"
$30M for targeted assistance; at discretion of Commissioner
"that's pending"
"this will happen over the next couple of weeks one way or another"
visits with Commissioner, Higher Ed to districts on early college high school
pathways programs: "expand careerways in comprehensive high schools"
Connecting activities has been part of Mass STEM at Work

Public comment: Emily Ruddock (?)
director of policy and public affairs for MassCreative
"so delighted to see there is an update on arts curriculum framework"
worked closely to ensure that arts participation "featured in that dashboard" on school and district report cards
"passion, professionalism, and dedication" of those reviewing updated standards
make sure all of this good work is actual implemented
need for staff person at DESE to coordinate professional development and implementation

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

Sorry, late posting on this
The Thursday agenda (back, note, to its regular 7 pm time) is mostly a Finance and Operations-related agenda, even setting aside the F&O report from the meeting today at 5.

Today's F&O meeting has the final account summary for FY18, an excruciatingly literal referral of page 415 of the budget book (on indirect costs), and a single page response to a list of queries from Miss Biancheria regarding facilities.
There is also an extensive update on summer work. There is A LOT (and this includes an update on South High construction!). Of concern: note in particular the list of failed boilers that have had to bump other projects; I'm counting Flagg, Wawecus, and Tatnuck Magnet as either failed or "of concern," which, along with the Claremont controls project, are bumping boiler replacement at Chandler Mag, Rice Square, Lincoln Street, and Burncoat Middle. Also, we're replacing boilers at Doherty and Burncoat High, too? And I imagine we've...like maxed out our accelerated repair projects or something, so these aren't split with MSBA? There is a LOT there; go look at it!

On Thursday's agenda, there are some recognitions. There is NO report of the superintendent. There's a posting of a non-specific executive session.

A series of reports are back, cleaning up from the budget:
There is a response on the reduction of outside vendors (specifically looking at applied behavioral analysis).
There is a (much less extensive) response on summer work PLUS a note on Harlow Street School.
There is a response on snow removal (in sum, it's in more than one acccount because it needs to be).

There is a response to an item on tutors which summarizes all action stemming from the final FY19 budget being larger than the House budget (THIS IS WORTH REVIEWING), and including a nice little summary of where we're at on FBRC. This also notes that the district budget isn't really done until the city sets the tax rate in the fall.

There's a list of which positions are funded how in the Teaching and Learning section of central admin.
There's a past year's positions list in the maintenance department.
And there's a list of where there are security personnel.

There's a somewhat vague update on Doherty High: design firm to be selected in November, then review process with community (hey school committee members: INSIST ON SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS! Make the process more like Nelson Place and less like South). The exact same backup accompanies the following item on Burncoat.

Apparently, the Committee is discussing the "Cultures of Innovations" section of the strategic plan. I hadn't realized this--had anyone?--but apparently they were discussing each section (quickly) during the summer. The plan is to adopt the whole thing Thursday night as well. What connection this has with having referred the plan for review to subcommittees, I don't know. Clearly, someone just wants to get it through without an extensive review process.

For reasons that are unclear, the administration is proposing what it is calling a policy on absence, though it appears to me to be language that pushes a notion of truancy. The administration's worrying focus on bringing back draconian (and unsupported) language, and, one supposes, action, around student absences I imagine stems from the state's change in the accountability system. It strikes me, though, that this is going to do nothing more than run more families (what to guess which ones?) into state oversight, more students into conflict with the school system, and won't actually keep more kids in schools.

There is a suggestion for a Municipal Government Day.
There is a request on for an update on the CPR training.
There is a request for an update on South High (which if someone is paying attention, will be filed, since they got one).

Finally, reading between the lines on administrative requests: TRANSPORTATION:

gb #8-259 - Administration (August 28, 2018)
To authorize the Administration to enter into contracts for the lease of property for a term of up to twenty years for the operation of student transportation for a contract term to begin in June 2020.
gb #8-260 - Administration (August 28, 2018)
To authorize the Administration to enter into contracts for the lease of school buses, special education school buses, and wheelchair buses for a term of up to five years for the operation of student transportation for a contract term to begin in June 2020.

Leasing buses and finding space for them...this is bringing transportation back in house!

No promises on live blog. 

Board of Ed update on FY19 budget

Bell: state assessment funding already went over earlier
spending right now in FY18
both House and Senate just passed the supplemental budget; on Governor's desk
includes $12.5M for support for circuit breaker
AND INCLUDES $2.5M for charter school payments
earlier $15M for student evacuees
already distributed $6.7M in April (expenses til March)
round two of $8.3M (March to end of school year)
second data capture to distribute funding
based it on a FTE basis
federal government when it "finally produced an FY19 bill"
also a federal emergency impact aid bill
anyone from Hurricane Harvey, Maria, and CA wildfire
"we don't anticipate a lot of students from Texas or California"
in process of collecting data from the districts to also have those districts reimbursed by the federal government
"we as a state need to file an application by the 4th of June"
finalizing data collection: will be two opportunities
anticipating funding in late June, early July
intended for this year; "will be an accounting exercise" once they get it (as the fiscal year will have ended)
"remains to be seen if these values will hold, as it's a $2.5B national pot"

FY19: Senate budget currently being deliberated
theme "strong commitment to education local aid accounts"
Senate in best position
implementation of low income shift in future year
ELL increment
value of Senate circuit breaker would probably be 71 or 72%
additional charter reimbursement in the Senate; "it's not where the need statement is...but it's still a significant increase"
hoping assessment item comes in through amendment (as Senate W&M has it in lower), doesn't go to conference committee

Worcester school meetings this week : UPDATED

And we have a school committee agenda...it only was posted this morning...
There are two subcommittee meetings this week (apologies for not posting earlier):

• Finance and Operations met last night which appears to have had the auditors in, as well as covered the third quarter report, with transfers coming out of health insurance to cover balances. Note that cutting legal services in a negotiation year was not a good idea. Since WPS seems to be running a rolling agenda, we can't tell what's going to be talked about at a meeting unless there's a backup. That completely negates the reason for having a posted agenda. 
• Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports this afternoon at 5 is set to cover Mandarin Chinese, girls ice hockey, summer programs, gifted students, and the DOJ agreement. I am told it is cancelled. 

There's also a regular Thursday meeting, which has the postponed report of the superintendent on a FY19 budget update (a week (?) ahead of the FY19 budget going out to the School Committee). 

There are a series of appointments, resignations, and retirements.
There are some recognitions.

There's a response that allowing for school choice siblings automatically to be in the same school would cause space issues. 

There will be (not posted) a response on free driver's ed.

Miss Biancheria would like a schedule of Memorial Day events by school.

Mr. O'Connell would like the district to consider participating in the Massachusetts Assistance Program for Lead in School Drinking Water.
Mr. Comparetto would like the committee to go on record in favor of S.2325, the Foundation Budget Review Commission bill.
And there are two grants for reception: the Increased Quality Summer Learning and Transition Program Grant for $45,000, which will be used for a summer rising kindergartner program at Elm Park and for 7th graders at Forest Grove; and the 21st Century Learning Centers Summer Enhancement Grant for $20,000, for a summer writing and reading program at Sullivan Middle and Burncoat Middle.

There is a 6 pm executive session for negotiations with teachers, tutors, tradesmen, parent liaisons, and plumbers and pipefitters, and two grievances. 

If it looks as though the budget update is happening, I'll try to make it. 

Senate passes supplemental budget

While it is FY19 budget season, it also is FY18 supplemental budget season, when the Legislature passes a bit more money for specific programs for the current year as it becomes clear such funds are available.
A few weeks back, the House passed a supplemental budget that included $12.5M for circuit breaker funds.  Circuit breaker is an acknowledgement by the state that out-of-district special education tuition can be quite expensive; much like an actual circuit breaker flips if the circuit is overloaded, circuit breaker funding kicks in if tuition for an out-of-district special education tuition is too much. If you scroll down here, there's a good explanation from Deputy Commissioner Jeff Wulfson on how that works ('though it is from 2008, so ignore the dollar amounts). If a student's tuition is more than four times the average foundation budget per student in the state (and yes, that number pops up...basically nowhere else?), the state is committed by MGL Ch. 71B, Sec. 5A to paying 75% of that overage.
This year, tuition costs rose but the line for the circuit breaker in last year's budget hadn't. Both House and Senate have heard a lot about this from districts--in a small district, a single student can break your budget!--and so have responded.
Yesterday, the Senate passed the same $12.5M the House passed; that number thus should go to the Governor (and they have more than enough votes to override a veto, if that became necessary).

The Senate also included $4M for charter school reimbursement on an amendment proposed by Senator Chang-Diaz. That was not in the House budget, and so goes to conference committee.

I do also want to note that the Senate, whose budget comes out next month, had an extensive conversation around financial commitments to school districts, around promising something like circuit breaker, or charter reimbursement, or regional transportation, and not delivering it. It's clear that the message there is being heard (at least in the Senate) loud and clear.

A word about timing: while for teachers and students, it's a time of year that ossalates between "we'll never get there" and "nearly done," in the financial world, there's no question: this school year is nearly done. Plenty of districts cut off departmental and other spending May 1 to ensure that spending will all be through by the fiscal year's end on June 30. General funds allocated to the schools that haven't been spent by June 30 are returned to the town or city in a municipal district, where it will become part of free cash; in a regional district, some of that can go into an excess and deficiency account (and thus be held over), but even that has limits. There are exceptions, and circuit breaker is one; it can be held over to following year (and lots of districts use one year to pay the next year's tuition). In general, though, the later in the year "new" money comes into the district, the less useful it is to the district (it isn't as though anyone is hiring a new teacher in May) and the greater the likilihood that it ends up in city coffers, anyway.
This isn't to discount the importance of what the Senate did yesterday. It is to say that what they do next month is more important.

And speaking of budgets...

...another round of congratulations is due over at the Finance and Operations offices...

Today we received word that for the 5th consecutive year the @worcesterpublic received the @ASBOIntl Meritorious Budget Award - the highest award for school budget presentation and transparency and commitment to sound fiscal management practices. Kudos to the Fin&Ops team! pic.twitter.com/q3xEsTRdsL

— Brian E. Allen (@Brian_E_Allen) February 28, 2018

Worcester School Committee meetings next week

Two subcommittees and a full committee meeting!
It's not actually clear from the online postings what is going to be discussed at the subcommittee meetings; it's just everything that has been sent to that subcommittee. That's not best practice on agenda postings; here's my guess from what has backups.

Monday, there's a Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting (5pm). It looks like a lot of the items are facilities repair related (most without a backup); you can see the list of big projects done in cooperation with MSBA (costing more than $60M total since 2012)  here. In other words, the answer to "why haven't we used bonds?" is "we have."
Because cell phones are always with us, there is a report on that.
The one to watch, of course, is the quarterly budget update. It's in much better shape for second quarter (free cash transfer) with a projected ending balance of -$177, 761...still negative, but better. The report is here.
Note that legal was cut by $30,000 and now is over that amount. Workers compensation continues to be over the budgeted amount (remember when there are proposed cuts during deliberations). Special education tuition is eight new students since June (and I don't understand the last sentence in that paragraph...meaning it was more like $700K?). Translation--in two accounts--has been flagged as underfunded in the past, as well.
The good news on utilities is that the solar panels are working; the bad news is that Nelson Place is getting fewer solar panels than planned? Also, crossing guards are not an account in which one wants to see a balance! There are some account transfers on this one.


Tuesday, Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports meets at 5. There's a response to an (old; my name is on it) item on reviewing what instruction there is on coding, for which the response is this:

There's an item on wrestling teams and one on the reading curriculum. 

The amendment to the Worcester East Middle innovation school plan has no academic or instructional backup, no support from teams at the school or anything else; it just reports enrollment. As I think of all of the work that went into the innovation plan, this is pretty appalling. 

The one item that may be of most interest is the upcoming school calendars. 

On Thursday's full meeting, the report of the superintendent is her goals for the year. They are: 

• completing the new superintendents' induction program
• providing high quality learning opportunities and resources to all students: the benchmarks are around AP, linking to Khan Academy (!), and then by subject area
• developing a district technology plan...perhaps they could start with the one from five years ago. This includes "scaling computer science," redoing the website by 2018, and providing "equitable access to mobile technology."
• providing effective professional development with a list of professional development plans
• continuing to analyze district data: with measurements having to do with dual enrollment, tiered support, gifted instruction, 
• developing a positive school climate: with references to some initiatives

...

As a response to the frequent "advertise, advertise" item, the district apparently is being rebranded; beware of reports having no dollar figure attached.

There's a list of the schools that have students from Puerto Rico.

Relatedly, the $5000 came through, and Worcester is using it on a "homeless liaison."

There is a request that the School Committee accept: 

• $450 to the Art Department at Doherty Memorial High School in memory of Jeffrey Gustafson.
• $300 to the Special Education Department at Grafton Street School in memory of Elisha Inferrera.

There are requests for the following:

• Request that the Superintendent create an updated Health and Wellness Curriculum for middle and high school students. (Petty, joined by all of the committee; held from the last meeting)
• Request that the Administration provide a report on the accountability changes made by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (Monfredo)
• Request that the Administration provide a progress report on the Hanover Academy at Burncoat Middle School. (McCullough)
• To consider joining forces with the Brockton Public Schools as a plaintiff in its School Funding Lawsuit. (Comparetto)
• Request that the Administration provide a report on changes in principal leadership and its plans to hire new principals.(Comparetto)
• Request that the Administration provide a report on its efforts to attract a diverse pool of teachers and administrators in the Worcester Public Schools. (Comparetto)
•  To consider a review of a publication entitled Teaching Hard History: American Slavery from the Southern Poverty Law Center.(Comparetto)
• To support Senate Bill No. S249-An Act to involve youth in civic engagement, a new bill filed on Beacon Hill by State Senator Harriette Chandler. (Monfredo)
• Request that the Administration provide an update on the ways in which education is provided to staff and students, in light of the opioid crisis, as a result of the passage of the recently enacted Marijuana Law. (Biancheria)

There is a 6 pm executive session for three workers' comp cases and a grievance.

Board of Ed: Puerto Rico

and the backup is here
As of January 12, 2573 all together; 2298 still enrolled; 275 have enrolled back in Puerto Rico
bulk of students in 12 districts
$60,000 to highest challenged districts from McKinney-Vento
650 winter coats donated; Student Advisory collected hats and mittens
$15M to be requested in FY19
Wulfson: Baker to ask for supplemental funding BOTH for this current (FY18) year as well as the funding for next year

Moriarty: is it going to be a per pupil? in proportion to Ch. 70? will it be adjusted by month?
Wulfson: we'll know when the Governor releases his budget
current thinking is what it would be if students were here and counted, adjusted by how long students were here
Peyser: if it turns out that our estimates are accurate, we'll be funding at, if you'd call it that, the typical level

2017 Top Ten

As I think I've said before, I do this as much for me as for anybody, as I don't pay that much attention to analytics (beyond straight page views) during the year, unless something seems to blow up. Thus, without further ado...the top viewed posts for 2017:

I'll spoil the surprise and tell you that the top landing page continues to be the front page, 'though the percentage on that is down somewhat. I'll be interested in seeing if the option of getting an email each time there is a new post (see the left margin on a full screen version) will bring that down.

10. Not entirely surprising, considering how he dominated the news cycles this year, but tenth most viewed post this year was this post-inaugural post "Trump on education: myth busting". Setting the tone for much this year, the third line of that post is:

Both halves of this statement are false.

9. My post on Worcester's preliminary election was the ninth most viewed post (in part because it ended up being promoted on social media).  I'll of course be keeping a close eye on my new district councilor Matt Wally, who, along with Mayor Petty, the rest of the City Council and the School Committee are sworn in on Tuesday.

8. The December 4 post on how the federal tax bill could hurt school budgets was the eighth most viewed, and that will no doubt continue to be a topic of major concern since the terrible tax bill passed.

7. Demonstrating that there's no lack of interest in wonkish finance posts, the post from early July explaining hold harmless and minimum per pupil aid--and thus why chapter 70 could still be constitutionally cut for many communities--was the seventh most viewed. This didn't happen, and politically it's something of a third rail, but it's a good thing to understand about how many school districts are getting their increases in aid now.

6. The reason I didn't do this earlier in the week is I wanted somewhat valid results and I saw this one blowing up: the December 29th post on how the accountability system in changing in Massachusetts. Given more time, this would be higher. The weighing of that system is part of the January meeting of the Board of Education, so stay tuned.

5. My Wednesday-after-the-election post on what happened across Massachusetts in education is the fifth most viewed. One of the things I've had to adjust to in this job is how many races you end up following on election night: LOTS! The city school committees are being sworn in over the course of the next few weeks, as it happens.

4. Going back to the reset of accountability coming out of the federal education law, this April Board of Ed liveblog on the state's resetting of the accountability system was the fourth most-read. This is mainly, I believe, due to people looking for confirmation that this year was going to (for most elementary schools) be a year without levels, as it was.

3. Part of the explosion of resistance work has been passing things along on social media, which sometimes has drawbacks, which led to this post from February, taking apart one such "copy and paste" on federal education and giving specifics on what to watch, which is still true: CIVIL RIGHTS.

2. This August post about Worcester principals under the new administration--commenting that the persistent demand for a public process on principal appointments have vanished with the change in administration--was the second most read post.

1. And demonstrating that Boston can bring its size to bear even this far west, the most individually read post was "Clickbait" responding to a mess of an article from September that intimated that two dozen Boston schools were in danger of being declared underperforming this year, something all those who read number 4 knew wasn't the case.


What's up for 2018? January is going to be a lot: we've got the Governor's budget being released, a Board of Ed meeting that sets the balance in the accountability system, a new Commissioner being voted in, and (fingers crossed) Senate bill 224 on the foundation budget getting out of the Joint Committee on Education (Have you bugged anyone on that lately? Because this week, we start!).
And that, of course, is just January, but those four things will be where a lot of the state attention on schools are this year.
One thing I personally want to keep working on (spurred by my holiday reading) is a better understanding and knowledge of the history of public education in Massachusetts; you may see some of that come through on here.
No worries, though: I've gotten the message (both on and offline) that coverage and commentary from Worcester is needed and appreciated. The strategic plan is supposed to be released early next year, too, so we'll keep an eye on that, as well as Worcester's budget (below foundation no more?) and what other changes Worcester may or may not be up to.

Happy new year to you and yours, and, as I said over on Twitter earlier this week:

Also, I just want to say here that I dearly love that there are those of you interested in accountability updates and the history of desegregation, December 29 or no. #MAEdu

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) December 29, 2017

Guess who doesn't currently have a net school spending gap?

Worcester.

Yes, that does mean right now we're a smidge over. Last year, we came through $1.28M under. 

h/t to An Education for pointing out that new numbers were posted today.

Funding for Puerto Rico students

I was a little confused by this article from yesterday--and I was at the meeting referenced!--so I asked for clarification. The intent is for the administration to file a supplemental budget (as they often do) alongside the Governor's budget in January including pothole funding (so, not looped into the foundation budget, but filling the "pothole" that has come up) for the students from Puerto Rico. That funding would be for FY18, aka THIS SCHOOL YEAR. The new budget for FY19 would likewise have such funding.
(And then if students have stayed, they will be counted next October, so they'll be in the foundation budget count for FY20.)
No word yet on how much, but every time I hear this discussion, the state emphasizes again being sure that students who come in have Puerto Rico designated in their record as where they're coming from, so make sure your district is doing that!

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

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

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

Thus this comment:

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

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

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

...looks a little like overkill.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Ed: FY19 Budget proposal

Wulfson: about a third of the year through FY18, beginning development of FY19

Bill Bell
quick FY18 update: briefly in middle of implementing FY18 spending plan
has been some activity since Governor signed the budgets
override of vetos has some earmarks; hasn't been finalized
big positive news is the additional $4.1M for assessment has been authorized and approved by Governor; awaiting a revenue transfer of that funding
sooo...not DESE money. Where did they find it?
restricted revenue environment
federal ledger is fully appropriated for the school year
funding work you hear now is to fund next school year (on federal side)
discussion around prioritizing areas of emphasis

Craven: did talk a lot about general climate
"constrained resources"
much of DESE funding is a pass through to districts
very little oversight or ability to change
working with health for high needs children
Peyser: really important point
"a lot of supports and services out there...not easy to gain access to it...the whole is greater than the sum of the parts"
growing attention to opioid crisis; intersects with challenges we are facing
Craven: retained revenue fund for licensure?
Wulfson: teacher licensure fees have not been raised in twenty years; under discussion for this budget cycle

four or five aid accounts represent 98% of our budget
in all cases, there are arguments that they aren't being fully funded
"so large that they tend to scoop up all of the available dollars"
"concerned about the capacity of the department to undertake all of the work we are doing, as well as the responsibilities that are being added"
level 5: very intensive
investigation in licenses
"very constrained fiscal cap"
"We may be able to hire a commissioner, but our ability to hire additional staff is virtually non-existence at this point in the budget cycle"
oversight of programs not funded
no rule similar to state as fed with percentage set aside for oversight
Stewart: is there a better way to reimburse those areas?

Worcester meetings this week

Two Worcester school meetings this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a series of donations.

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

Miss Biancheria wants to discuss the Community Addiction Response Program.

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

Why your district's required net school spending may be higher than foundation this year

It's not what you think!
I got this question yesterday and I thought it possible, having poked at it today, that others might have come across it and wondered.

It is possible to have a required net school spending level ABOVE foundation this year EVEN IF your district has been spending at or above required spending levels in prior years.

To review: the foundation budget is the state's number of how much the state believe it costs (in total) at a minimum to educate students in your district in a particular year. It includes both your required local contribution and your ch. 70 aid (that makes the difference between what the state says you can afford to pay and the foundation budget).
Net school spending is how much your district must spend on education (which is specifically defined) in a year. This should generally be your foundation budget BUT if your district has spent under foundation in one year, the amount by which the district has underspent gets added to the subsequent year.

There's another reason this may happen, though.
You might remember that when the state made the change from low income to economically disadvantaged, there were some districts that lost out: not all the kids who had been registered for free or reduced lunch appear on state rolls for programs, and most districts saw a corresponding drop in the count of disadvantaged kids. For some districts, it was catastrophic.
There's been work going on around that--I even saw an update on it this week--but in the meantime, the state has passed additional funds as a stopgap for the small number of districts that were hit by this.
But those are not in the foundation budget; they're over and above that.

Let's look at Cambridge, as that's the district I heard the question on. Here's the summary for Cambridge for FY18:

Pretty straightforward: the foundation budget is $84M; Cambridge is a wealthier community, so they pay most of it--the $69.6M--and the state aid is the remaining $14M. Cambridge saw an increase in enrollment over last year, so this is a straight increase in the foundation budget.

But here's what happens in line 8, below that:

Because Cambridge was among the handful of districts that lost out substantially in the switch to economically disadvantaged, the Legislature voted to add a sum to make up for that. For Cambridge, it's just over $100K.

That isn't foundation aid, though, and it didn't change the foundation budget. But the state IS going to require that it be spent on education.

Thus, we end up with a final calculation that looks like this:

If you compare the righthand (FY18) line in blue, which is the Ch. 70 aid, to that line in first chart, you'll see that it's gone up by the additional aid from line 8. Because that is required spending on education, it gets added to the required net school spending, which now is above the foundation budget. So we end up with required spending that is 0.13% over foundation. 

And yes, this happened last year, too. Nobody asked me last year. 

And as always, if I lost you, send me a line! 

September Board of Ed: budget

have filed spending plan for FY18
expect approval in next few weeks
still working with Governor for $4.1M more in student assessment
budgetary subcommittee in October; planning in FY19
still below benchmark for FY18

The Board of Ed has their September meeting on Tuesday, September 26

You can find the Board of Ed agenda here. It should stream live here.
In light of the extensive coverage Chair Sagan's recently discovered $500,000 donation to Families for Excellent Schools, who were operating a pass-through for the Yes on 2 campaign, is getting, let me start by pointing out that he won't be at the meeting: he announced last month that he had to be away this month and would be participating remotely (yes, really: he announced it at the meeting in August). The meeting thus will be chaired by Vice-Chair James Morton.

After opening remarks, there will be an update on the Commissioner's search.
The Board will then hear the report on LBGTQ students and the Safe Schools that had originally been scheduled for June.

The Board is scheduled to hear an update on the state ESSA plan. As all plans not already submitted were due Monday (meaning the federal Department received more than thirty new plans), you'd think they'd be seeking to clear out the few remaining they've been reviewing (Massachusetts, Michigan, and Connecticut), but no word as yet. Perhaps why there is as yet no backup?

There are TWO updates on student assessment: an update on the MCAS (both that was given and coming up), which includes a glimpse of the new parent report (not uploaded; let me see what I can do), and an update on the high school test (backup currently not there).

There will be an update on pending bills (this may at least partly be in response to a request from several members that they at least get information on this, and may be lively in light of the bill Senator Jehlen is filing). They'll also be getting an update on the budget.
Among the other items being forwarded to the Board is a schedule for proposed charter schools coming before them; I will get that and share it.

Livetweeting/blogging on Tuesday!

Quick note on the FY18 circuit breaker (with an update!)

From today's MASBO update from Jay Sullivan: the FY18 special education circuit breaker is expected to be 65%. The circuit breaker reimburses districts for out-of-district special education tuitions of a particularly high amount.

If that sounds low to you, here's why (charts are the work of MassBudget, which has great stuff on their Budget Browser:

That's $281M for FY18.

Yes, that is down (about $2M) from last year. And costs keep rising for districts, so there are more applications for less money.

If that's less than you were expecting, it was higher in earlier iterations of the budget:

Not good news. 

UPDATE: I got a question late last week about this, and I thought the answer might be of more general interest. A school committee member asked me, "How do I know what this means to my district?"
Great question!
To back up a step or two: every district budget is created based on projections of how much money is coming in the next year (and from where) and how much money will be spent next year (and to where). Thus, in every district that qualifies for circuit breaker, someone in the finance office sat down at some point and said, "Next year, I think out of district tuition will cost X, and I think we'll get Y back in circuit breaker reimbursement."
Now, I would also tell you that you should be able to find this written down somewhere:

This might be made explicit in your budget.
(Clears throat)
For example, @worcesterpublic's (p.11, should you want to go look) pic.twitter.com/hDOGZfgv9X

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) September 17, 2017

If not, this is a perfectly legitimate question for a school committee member to ask during budget deliberations.
Since it now has changed, it is now a perfect legitimate series of questions to ask to discover: what percentage did we project circuit breaker as? And that was how much? And it now being 65% means it now is what?
And, as those are budgetary questions being asked, that should all be public information.

How ESSA's requirement on school level finance reporting may miss the point

I just read a new paper out from Bruce Baker and Mark Weber entitled "State School Finance Inequities and the Limits of Pursuing Teacher Equity through Departmental Regulation" and if you're a funding wonk type, I'd recommend it.
The upshot--and I'm oversimplying here--is that the requirement that ESSA has that school by school level finance reporting be done misses the real problem of funding inequity, which continues to be one of district by district. The district by district funding inequities are the issue we see driving the Foundation Budget Reform Commission in Massachusetts, the hangup over the state budget in Connecticut and in Illinois, insecurity as the new school year begins in Wisconsin...and I could continue. As Baker and Weber point out in the paper, equity in funding lies with the states, not the fed, and until district by district inequities are dealt with, we're missing the crux of the problem.

Chat with Nat on education video is up

Last night's "Chat with Nat" presentation from Rep. Natalie Higgins of Leominster was live-streamed over Facebook. You can now watch anytime. It's well worth watching all of it: Natalia Berthet Garcia regarding her own experience in the Leominster Public Schools, as well as her work on the No on 2 campaign is compelling, and Barbara Madeloni is, of course, encouraging us to ask some different questions about what we think of and ask of our schools. There was also a really solid Q & A with the audience for the last half hour.

If you want a  speed version of"how does the foundation budget work" primer, skip to about 4 minutes in and listen to me for ten minutes. You can find my PowerPoint here.