Board of Ed for September: budget update

 Bill Bell: spending through October ($16B)
"just reading the news" sounds like plan is to finalize budget plan by end of October
revenue hearing a week from tomorrow
"which should lend some light" to where we are
most districts using relief fund to cover extraordinary expenses
districts have a decent overall idea of their revenue from the Commonwealth this year
FY22 is the question
Craven: there's a sea of unknowns
Bell: good sign is that state was able to close FY20 without dipping into the rainy day fund
Keeps spending intact for this current fiscal year
"a lot of things happening to try to get districts the infrastructure needed" for technology

and adjourned

MASBO: DESE update

Rob O'Donnell:
coronavirus relief funds (102): working through applications now; have received 341 as of August 31; have reviewed about 75% of those received. If haven't heard about approval yet, chances are that it has been approved; just waiting to be set up in system to send out payments; have issued payments for 162 so far; about 80 or so working on still reviewing; 
Some are purchasing Chromebooks through the state; total is just north of $5M; using Remote Learning Essentials grant for that (state is applying those funds for it; if that isn't enough, it will come out of above); will need to reduce value of grant by value of purchase
EOYR for grants; will be needed to be added to revenue sources for FY20 report if used in FY20
There is more grant funding beyond DESE; municipal funds coming from cities and towns (also "other federal grant" line in reporting)
Might towns receive more funds before Dec. 31? Don't think they've gotten it all already; was coming in two phases

Local contribution study: collecting public comment to inform study (had intended to do public forums); open through October 16
You should comment!

Jay Sullivan: a comment was made on the regional call that municipalities (with the exception of cities that are real hot spots) have more money than they can really spend; some may not be sharing because they are hoping to use it for revenue replacement; heed advice and keep track of all COVID-19 expenses; ex: paying school nutrition workers despite building being closed; those taking leave due to COVID-19
reporting piece on grants due on October 30 to walk through what that requirement would be
Student Opportunity Act and how it relates to 
SOA was to make budget more realistic on special education and health insurance, but also to increase funding EL and low income students; phased in implementation over 7 years would be ch. 70 increase over 7 years; bulk of increase in state aid would have gone to districts with largest number of low income and English learners; also changed circuit breaker, phasing in circuit breaker, and froze circuit breaker threshhold (was 4x statewide foundation; froze at FY19 level $45793); made more expenses eligible; BUT have to reimburse instructional costs BEFORE any transportation; "I have no idea" what will be paid this year "because we don't have a budget"; will be basing what we do on level funded circuit breaker
"If SOA isn't being implemented for those districts that have high need students...then should we really be implementing the circuit breaker side?"
"If we're not giving you the medicine, should we be giving you the spoonful of sugar?"
The FY20 threshhold if NOT frozen would be raised ($21M statewide at 75%)
"we're supposed to be making payments next week" but we don't know what we're getting
not exactly sure what's going to happen with that

Four months of a budget, but what is the Chapter 70?

This afternoon, the House and Senate both passed a four month budget, the single page document of which is here. It does not contain allocations, but does say this:

SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, items funded through this act shall be funded in a manner assuming not less than the lower of the general appropriations act for fiscal year 2020 or the operating budget submitted by the governor for fiscal year 2021 pursuant to section 7H of chapter 29 of the General Laws.

I am not clear on what "assuming not less than the lower" of level funding from last year OR the House 2 budget from January means!

We are given a bit more via Senator Adams Hinds on Twitter, the following, which I am quoting from State House News for reasons that will become apparent:

Hinds: Budget Level Funds Local Aid, Chapter 70
As lawmakers rush a $16.5 billion three-month budget to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk, the Senate Revenue Committee chairman indicated Tuesday that the bill level funds local aid to cities and towns.
In a tweet posted Tuesday afternoon and then later deleted, Sen. Adam Hinds also said the budget bill level funds Chapter 70 education funds to school districts, plus $107 million for inflation.
As the state delays its annual budget deliberations, cities and towns have been awaiting word on local aid levels, which pair with local property taxes to form the basis of revenues for local school, public safety and other municipal services.
Beacon Hill leaders have been gearing up for an announcement about local aid levels for fiscal 2021. - Michael P. Norton/SHNS | 7/28/20 3:01 PM

UPDATE: And THEN State House News Service added this from Senator Hinds:"I defer to the chairs of Ways and Means. The reality is, the details haven't been finalized."

 So, what would $107M mean? The inflation rate for this year is 1.99%, with 2.34% for health insurance. That isn't...far off what $5.1B would be over last year. So that would be JUST inflation, but the SOA inflation.

And it would be that for the full year, not the one third of the year.

Over the full year, it would also be $14M less than what the Worcester School Committee passed in June.

May Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meeting: later blog

Due to my own schedule and the Board going for a highly unusual afternoon meeting, I missed this week's Board of Ed. Thanks to the wonders of video, however, here is my blog of the meeting, a bit late.

The agenda is online here; the video is here. 
You can also read WBUR's Max Larkin's Twitter thread here and State House News Service's Katie Lannan on the MCAS here.

Craven: values are to be as transparent as possible with the members of the public as we move forward, through this remote learning, working to improve the lives of the almost million children whose lives have been displaced 

appreciate the work of all at the Department and stakeholders working diligently towards this summer and fall with keeping kids safe

Will be letting districts know what plans are as soon as they are developed

Liveblog: Board of Ed in April

The agenda is here. The video link is here.
Posting as they go: I am probably mangling names

Worcester Finance and Operations subcommittee

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

And speaking of the city...

...one wonders if anyone at all is going to raise with the City Council Tuesday during their tax classification hearing that the City's required contribution to the schools--set last year for barely over net minimum, and thus probably not going to break it--for FY21 will jump as the foundation budget increases and the state contribution increases?
Someone should. That needs planning.

Finance and Operations meets Monday

It's the first quarter report! and more!
The agenda is here.

The first item on the agenda is the report closing FY19. First, note that on a $345M general fund budget, the district was left with a balance of $2312 at the year's close (that goes back to the city). That's a margin that is, well, stunning. Districts that are much much smaller don't manage their projections and budget lines that tightly.
The second thing of note (to me, anyway) is that over the course of the year, over $4M was transfered from salary lines to non-salary lines, with $1.6M going to Misc Educational OM, which I don't understand...as of May, $370K had been transfered into that line, so what happened since?

The second item is a response to the request for a walking path from St. Paul Street to Flagg Street School; the report notes that a pathway of 300 feet would cost between $25,000 to $30,000; there is a layout as the second page.
There is no report, because one was not requested, on if this is the greatest facility need of this level of cost, if there are other schools that likewise might need such access, and if this is the most equitable way of spending such funds.

The first quarter report of this fiscal year is on this agenda: the year thus far by cost center is here; the report with narrative is here. As always, I'd urge you to read it, but a few notes:

• part of the FY20 budget increase via the Senate was an increase in instructional assistants, focusing on kindergarten. That line is running higher that budgeted...and I don't understand why from this description, to be honest. Ah, okay: if you read to the end of the report, this gets picked back up: Title I came in $158K lower than was budgeted, so instructional assistants are being shifted off of Title I to the general fund. 
• facilities ordinary maintenance is running higher than budgeted, because contracted services are having to pick up for unfilled positions.
• personnel services is running over almost entirely due to $184K in outside contractor professional development 
• transporation over three lines is running nearly $500K, with almost half of that coming from the giveback negotiated by the superintendent and agreed to by the Committee in connection with their renewed contract with Durham. Some of the other lines are likewise Durham-related, though they are WPS spending: the overtime "to address vacant positions" is, I'd venture, at least in part due to the times WPS is having to pick up Durham routes when Durham doesn't have drivers. The district in total has added four routes--two WPS, two Durham, despite the issues there--and that's the increase in the salary line.
• I keep saying this: 

  Also, there’s a prior year payment on here for over $10K and it’s November and I keep wondering if anyone is going to bring these things up...

  — Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) November 7, 2019

  ...and it appears that part of the reason for the workers' comp line is that 10 of THOSE are for the prior fiscal year; what the heck is going on??
  
• the salary line funding is all vacancies: maybe we should be asking why all of these positions are not managing to be filled?

The recommendation is to add five adjustment counselors--three in elementary, two in high school--and a guidance counselor to managing the early college programs (is this the greatest need on the guidance end??) and half a million dollars in literacy materials "and related professional development."

There's also a report on how the grants came back (some lower, some higher) and what might be shifted there. And the proportionate share requirement--funding special education services at private schools--is included in the description. 

Finally, there is  a 73 page report on environmental management. That sounds like a lot (it is!), but it's also actually readable:

An EMS requires an organization to “Say what you do, Do what you say, and Prove it” as a way to ensure compliance and overall improvements.

and uses parallel structure...
It reports out that environmental management has not only included specific departments, but has impacts districtwide, runnng to 600 staff having been involved. There's a focus on preventing issues, rather than fixing them after they occur. There are sections on legacy building issues (including lead in water, for those interested; I found it very reassuring, as the issues found have been dealt with and are undergoing retesting); usage (including indoor environmental quality! including:

The Facilities Department, the WPS EH&S Consultant, the WPS Nursing Department and the Worcester Department of Housing have worked together with a city-wide initiative, the Prevention Wellness Trust Fund (one of nine projects funded by DPH to reduce chronic disease, including pediatric asthma) to pilot EPA’s Tools for Schools program. It included classroom IEQ training and “walk-through” assessments. The goal of this component of this project was to identify conditions that could cause or trigger asthma.

and toxic use reduction...and apparently we need a boiler somewhere?...working on Breakfast in the Classroom, types of waste disposal); a department by department review, with an interesting note coming from the art department:

The Art Department identified heavy reliance on donations that were not all certified for use in schools

(another reason to fund the budget!), the end of the use of bleach by custodial staff, and a new term to use something in cleaning WPS buses:

Protexus Electrostatic Sprayer! (There are YouTube Videos!)
I feel as though someone should mention in here somewhere that this is, of course, just the WPS run buses, not Durham buses.
There are sections on preparing for emergency managment..
There are also some impressive references to operating protocols and training.
If this is of interest, I'd recommend it! 

My plan is to be there for this, but I do have a meeting later that night, so I don't know that I'll make it all. 

The Board of Education meets next week in Pittsfield

Another "taking it on the road" episode of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, this time in Pittsfield! And thus the meeting starts at nine-thirty. The agenda is posted here.
In part because the big news drop on MCAS/accountability is embargoed until that day, some of the stuff in this meeting doesn't have links, so there's not much a preview here.

word of warning from me: the tweeting and blogging is going to start late, as I have a meeting with a student council that morning first
This also means we get a chance to see the new Taconic High, which is great! 

After the usual array of public and Board comments, the Board meeting opens with a panel on educator diversity in part from Pittsfield. Specifically:

In FY2019, 14 school districts, including Pittsfield Public Schools, received teacher diversification pilot program grants.1 Pittsfield Public Schools utilized the grant to develop and implement an out-of-state recruitment strategy designed to foster new partnerships with students and staff from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In July 2019, the district invited 12 students from HBCUs to participate in a one-week immersion program to acquaint them with teaching and living in the Berkshires.

They're also electing a new vice-chair.
They are receiving a report from the Berkshire County Task Force (no link). For those not familiar, the Task Force has been working for a number of years on the difficulties of educating the Berkshires' shrinking population of schoolchildren over the many (and hilly!) miles. This is a real issue (and honestly, not only in the Berkshires) which doesn't get as much attention as it should at the state level, 'though, to be fair, the state funds the Task Force.

The Commissioner is proposing his goals for 2019-20, and there's no link to that, either.

MCAS and the corresponding accountability results will be released that morning.
Relatedly, the Commissioner is recommending to the Board that the minimum competency standard of the classes of 2021 and 2022 be also extended to the class of 2023; this would, with the vote of the Board, go out for public comment, as it is a regulation change. This is about the switch to the new tenth grade MCAS. This year's junior class is the first class to have taken it, but their scores are scaled against the prior test, essentially, such that the passage rate is parallel. That will also be true of this year's sophomores. This would extend that same to the freshmen class, as well. The argument, from the memo, is:

• The need for additional time to consider the results from the first administration of the grade 10 tests in spring 2019; 
• The need for additional time to consult with and gather feedback from the educational community, including students, parents, educators, administrators, policymakers, and community and business leaders, regarding a new CD standard; 
• and The need to provide adequate notice to students about the state high school graduation standard they are expected to meet. The class of 2023 is currently in 9th grade. This proposed extension of the current CD standard would provide timely notice that the Board is maintaining the interim standard as to their graduating class, and allow time for the Board to consider, adopt, and provide notice of any new standard for future graduating classes.

Finally, there is an overview of this year and next year's budget, which also doesn't have a backup.

Governor Baker says "Wait til next year" on school funding

Yes, really. From State House News:

In an interview with WGBH’s Joe Mathieu that aired Monday, Baker said he believes the Legislature is working “in good faith,” but that making changes to the state's foundation budget formula is a significant challenge.
“I do believe that there will be an Education 2.0 bill during this legislative session,” Baker said in the interview. "I don’t know if it will be by the end of this calendar year or by the end of the session. For purposes of the next school year, which starts a year from now, I think there will be a bill in place and I think it will basically address most of the issues that people have been talking about."

 If indeed an ed funding bill doesn't come out until January, we of course end up with the same race against the budget that we had this year, and thus the chances of it making any difference for FY21, as for FY20, become that much less.

Also, notice the language Baker is using and the reporters are adopting: they're talking about an "education reform bill." What went into committee, however, was an education funding bill. They have had their "reforms" (and frankly, the further "reforms" being talked about aren't reforms at all); they need to fund education.

Worcester School Committee meets for mid-August

I'd honestly missed that this was happening entirely, and there isn't a whole lot on the agenda beyond allocating the funds over the FY20 budget as passed in June.
Note that as it is summertime, the meeting is at 4 pm.

There are some honors and recognitions.
The administration has sent along the admission policy of Worcester Tech. Note that these are subject to state approval, and DESE is reworking their guidance on them, with an eye towards equity. This probably should be up for reconsideration over the next few months, then. Note for homeschoolers: an "approved" homeschool program?

There are prior fiscal year payments

• of $2,392.50 to EI US, LLC dba (doing business as) LearnWell, due to a name change.
• of $896.00 to Providence Nursing Agency for CNAs
• of $538.84 to Stevens Children’s Home Inc. dba (doing business as) Stevens Treatment Programs

Mr. O'Connell suggests commenting on " the proposed 'Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)' issued by the US Department of Agriculture." The comment period closes September 23.

This item:

Request that the Administration provide a proposed budget for a multi-faceted staff diversity recruitment initiative, and to allocate funds to implement it from the additional state aid furnished by the FY20 State Budget as enacted during July.

...and this item:

Request that the Administration provide its plans for the allocation of the new funding from the State.

immediately surround what the School Committee had to know was coming: the administration's proposed FY20 adjustments.

The adopted FY20 budget has an additional $4.6M (net) coming to the Worcester Public Schools from the budget the School Committee adopted in June, which was based on the proposed House Ways and Means budget.
That looks like this:

Note that of the $24.4M increase over last year, $13.2M of that is coming in from inflation. It is only the next highest amount, $8.9M, that is coming in from Foundation Budget changes; this should answer Mr. Monfredo's later item requesting an update on the impact of the foundation budget. Let's remember that when we hear claims about what FY20 did. And also:

We continue to look forward to final passage of a new Foundation Budget formula that adopts funding for economically disadvantaged students at the highest possible level.

What is administration recommending the funding go to?

• 6 instructional coaches "to provide instructional support and turnaround efforts" (there's that unannounced 'turnaround' again) at Burncoat High and Middle, Forest Grove, Sullivan, WEMS, and Challenge and Reach [$524,772]
• 4 elementary teachers and 1 elementary assistant principal; no word on where, though one assumes the teachers are for lower class size [$447,310]
• 5 ESL teachers, including the kindergarten dual language teacher for Woodland, which...had that not been budgeted for? [$437,310]
• 2 special ed teachers plus the conversion of an early childhood teacher into dept head, plus a Deaf and hard of hearing team chair [$183,062]
• 1 "health/drug" educator, which was advocated for during budget...I still have no idea what this person is to do, 'though there is an item requesting one following this on the agenda [$87,462]
• 2 guidance counselors (half a postion each for Burncoat Middle and High, 1 at North) [$174,924]
• 1 teacher at WEMS (no word for what) and converting Gerald Creamer Center evening adminstrator to a full time position (costing $2800) [$89,662]
• 10 sped IAs [$366,055]
• "an increase in middle school and freshman sports opportunities" with funding to support coaching, uniforms, supplies and transportation [$130,000]
• 1 clerical for special ed "to support compliance and administrative support for the department" [$75,000]
• 1 school-year clerical for the Fanning building, which doesn't have any [$39,672]
• 1 grant information specialist [$70,000]
• 1 school nurse (doesn't say where for) [$68,675]
• additional time for English language proficiency testing in the Parent Information Center [$20,000]
• 10 literacy tutors [$211,960]
• PD for "focused instructional coaches, social emotional staff, technology training, CPI and restraint training, and CPR training" [$37,650]
• dual language curriculum [$77,000]
• an increase "in costs" for STAR assessment [$37,812]
• "additional Chromebooks at the elementary and middle level" (no word on where or how many) plus computers for the additional staff here added [$396,000]
• "to begin the process of developing an RFP for a new student information system and implementation process" which was already in the budget--I'll have to look up for how much--and now somehow we need MORE funding for? [$225,000]
• nurse supplies which is overdue and underfunded [$19,862]
• Sullivan security system upgrade which seems rather random [$160,000]
• building maintenance: 
• Sullivan Middle carpet [$140,000]
• North High phones [$75,000]
• Claremont additional lockers [$50,000]
• sped office painting and carpet replacement [$8400]
• shift of funds from Title I, which is coming through less than budgeted, plus positions have increased in cost (this is odd) [$455,269]

PLUS: the charter assessment came through AS BUDGETED, so the "in case" line isn't needed. That means that there is $350,000 available. Administration is recommending adding 10 IA positions for some of the kindergarten classes that don't have them. There are 89 K rooms, 63 positions, currently; this would get to 73, and the remaining 16 would be part of the plan for FY21.

Note that the final page attempts to tie this back to the strategic plan.

The Committee is asked to accept the following donations:

• -$6,498.50 from various fundraising efforts at Woodland Academy
• -$500.00 from EOS Foundation to Francis McGrath Elementary School for the 2019 Healthy Start Award
• -$365.25 from Lifetouch to Chandler Magnet School
• -$155.00 from various donors to the Patricia Falcone Memorial Scholarship

Mr. O'Connell wants to hang banners on lightpoles about the schools.

And there is an executive session "to discuss litigation with respect to CAS petition Bus Drivers" after the meeting. 

Conference committee budget passes both chambers: a few notes

The conference committee released the FY20 budget Sunday evening (you can download it here) and both House and Senate passed it yesterday. I've updated the K-12 spreadsheet where I've been tracking the budget here.
As you can tell from the spreadsheet, many of the accounts were passed at the Senate levels, including the Chapter 70 rates:

This is good news on low income:

It's not as great news on English learners: 

...where the House was more progressive than the Senate. The Foundation Budget Review Commission called for a flat rate for this; we've had a rate (on top of the base) for a few years now, and I have to confess that I'm increasingly persuaded that we ought, like the House had it, be funding in a progressive towards the older end model, due to the steeper climb (and shorter time available) for students learning English later. 

Nonetheless, the passage is intended as a step towards the Commission, and that's a good thing.

It's interesting to note how many of the accounts in fact fund at levels even higher than the Senate did, due, one assumes, to higher than projected state revenue, but also effective local advocacy on a number of these lines. For example:

7009-6600, Early College is $2,500,000 in the conference committee budget, which splits the difference between the Governor's originally proposed $3M and the House's (amended) $2M.

7010-0012, METCO is up to $24.2M, a level about $2M above last year, 'though that includes $45K for late bussing to Lexington and Arlington.

7035-0002, adult education is up to $41M, with about $450K of that in earmarks; it was budgeted at $33.3M last year, and, as we heard at the Board of Ed in December, is significantly underbudgeted and so not meeting the needs.

7035-0006, regional transportation reimbursement makes it to $75.8M. The last official estimate I saw on this put the Governor's $68.8M at a 76% reimbursement, which by my back of the envelope puts this at about 83.8%.

7035-0009, McKinney-Vento reimbursement, which DESE estimated $9M was 37%, goes up to $11M.

7061-0011, circuit breaker, gets boosted to $345M. I'm leery of any projections on this one, as MASBO has been getting updates from DESE about how reimbursement requests are piling in, but it was at $319M last year, which should give you an idea of how much special education costs are skyrocking.

7061-0016, low income pothole, was all over the place during deliberations: the Governor didn't have it, the House had it at $16.5M with some pretty clear allocations, the Senate didn't fund it (but had the higher low income allocations in Ch. 70). They came through with $10.5M in the conference committee for districts that saw a hit on the shift from low income to economically disadvantaged being the count.

7061-9010, charter reimbursement (the Governor wants to call it "mitigation" now), was not only about the money but about the language. House 70, the school funding bill proposed by Governor Baker, would change allocation back to 100/60/40 for the first three years of an increase to a local charter school, but also would make that reimbursement only to districts seeing enrollment changes above the prior five years. The House put this language into their budget; the Senate made the 100/60/40 change, but didn't change the allocation method. The conference committee makes none of these changes only the 100/60/40 change, but also did boost the final amount to $115M, with the $15M halved between districts spending more than 9% of foundation on charters that get less than 41% (as that's the balance between state and districts statewide) of their foundation budget in state funding, and those seeing high enrollment. In both cases? Read Boston.

7061-9400, MCAS, came through at the originally proposed $32.2M, and the only news here is that there was no news on this line this year.

7061-9401, MCIEA, piloting alternative assessment, was not funded in any of the originally proposed budgets, but funded at $550,000 by Senate budget amendment.

7061-9607, recovery high schools, had been budgeted by the Governor at $2.5M "to meet projected need," which didn't feel accurate. The House went to $2.6M, the Senate back down to $2.5M, and the conference committee puts it at $3.1M.

7061-9611, after school programs came out of conference committee stuffed with earmarks,bringing the total to $8.2M and making this article in the Salem News misleading.

7061-9013, rural school aid, funded at $1.5M last year, was not funded by the Governor or House, was funded at the same $1.5M in the Senate, but ended up at $2.5M in conference committee. Count this one up to Senator Adam Hinds, who has been waging a single Senator push on this (to sympathy from his colleagues, clearly).


We aren't done yet! The budget is now with the Governor, and in Massachusetts, the Governor has a line item veto, which the Legislature likewise can overrule. Updates as I have them! And as always, ask rather than wonder!

What about state aid and reimbursements?

The following was in this week's Commissioner's update:

Due to the delay in the passage of the final FY20 state budget, the Department of Revenue has announced that it will make the July cherry sheet payments and assessments based on the amounts in the Governor’s House 1 budget proposal submitted in January. This affects Chapter 70 aid as well as charter tuition payments and reimbursements. Charter school amounts, in particular, may be significantly higher or lower when the final budget is enacted, so districts and charter schools are cautioned not to rely on the July payments as they finalize their district and school spending plans. As soon as there is a final state budget, DESE will provide districts with final Chapter 70 amounts and updated charter tuition estimates. The August cherry sheet payments will be adjusted to reflect any over- or under-payment in July.

Things I learned this week: 1. Chapter 70 aid payments are issued monthly BUT at the end of the month; 2. Thus the first fiscal year payment doesn't come out until July 31; 3. Circuit breaker reimbursments generally don't start until September (it varies a bit by district). 

With the news that we may finally, FINALLY be getting a state budget this coming week, we at least don't have to worry about what happens if we get into August.
We hope.

June Board of Education: FY20

backup here
Bill Bell: still waiting for the Legislature to produce a budget for the Governor to review
Conference committee is meeting; hopefully closing gaps to produce bill
is an interim budget in place for next Monday, when new fiscal year starts
Joint Committee on education doing on school funding
"it's probably worth highlighting, because I think it gets confused"; the bill WILL NOT AFFECT the coming year
(that's the FY20 budget)
doing a lot of modeling for the committee as they work
Peyser: plea to whomever is listening
sufficient flexible resources for Commissioner to implement his plans
make a difference in what goes on in the classroom

This week's lesson in macroeconomics

...if there is a perception of no competition for something, the supplier will demand more money for it.

This brings us neatly to the single bid from Durham Bus Services for Worcester Public Schools transporation received Friday; Durham perceives that they have little to no competition for Worcester's contract, and so they bid a sizable increase.

If Worcester opted to hire Durham for all three years, it would be taking on a significant cost increase over what it currently pays the company, which is going into the final year of its five-year deal with the district. Next school year, for instance, the school department would be paying Durham $444 per big bus, according to the recently approved fiscal 2020 budget; the average over the following three years, based on the company’s bid, would be $525 per big bus – an 18 percent hike.
That increase would continue a trend of climbing transportation costs for the district, which has seen its five-year contracts with Durham go from $52.7 million in 2005 to $62 million in 2015.

In fact, if you run the numbers compared to the current contract (see page 218 of the FY20 budget)...

...the increase for FY21, when it would begin, is an eyepopping 16.5% over FY20. It is a $2M increase in a single year!

Recall, as well, that this the same transporation company has had issues all year long in Worcester, in what seems clear are management, not driver, issues. The lack of competition plus the lack of appropriate service has pushed the district further towards considering running its own bus service, a report which the School Committee voted to request, as well, in voting to approve the subcommittee report requesting a cost-benefit analysis.

It seems this will be before the Finance and Operations subcommittee on August 13. If you have opinions about service or cost, it would be well to let the committee know.

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday in Revere

New chair Katherine Craven said they'd be taking the show on the road, and June's meeting is at Rumney Marsh Academy in Revere. The agenda is online here, and it's a lengthy one!

Most of the backups are posted but the one that might be of most general interest, the evaluation of the Commissioner is not. Nor is his report to the Board.

Those top the agenda after the usual public comments and the welcome from the Revere Public Schools.

There is a discussion and request for approval of the new arts standards. These are back from public comment, and linked off that page you can find the comments submitted, the response of the department, and the proposed standards.

Also back from public comment are the revised accountability standards. You can find a link to a summary of the comments submitted off that page; most resulted in no change, in some cases due to the federal law. You can also find a link to the document itself with highlighted revisions. Many of the changes in the document are simply recognizing time (it moves from intent to do to what is being done); the substantive changes are:

• subgroup participation will be calculated for ELA and math (and science where applicable) together, so as to raise the number and work to mitigate the impact of small numbers of non-participants
• Project Lead the Way is added to the list of advanced coursework (which is revised, in any case)
• two years of data are used for accountability with 2019 now weighed at 60%

Coming in for its first (I think?) Board update are the health standards; these, perhaps infamously, were last updated in 1999. The planned timeline is:

• Outreach and Planning (June 2018 – November 2018)
• Review, Revision, and Board Action (December 2018 – Winter 2020)
• Revised Framework Initial Implementation (Spring 2020 – Summer 2021)

The review panel has just finished meeting; they met six times since December (the list of panelists is here) with a focus on "the learning standards that outline what students should know and be able to do related to comprehensive health." The Department plans over the summer to "seek additional feedback from content advisors and other key stakeholders, as needed," with a plan to present initial frameworks in the fall to go out to public comment. The final frameworks would then be ready to be released, after public review, in winter of 2020, for implementation in the fall of 2021.

There is the annual "oh dear we wouldn't want to have to have you meet over the summer" delegation of authority to the Commissioner, with specific mention of the contracts of Dudley Street Neighborhood Charter School and Roxbury Preparatory Charter School. 

There is a (revised) list of dates of next year's Board meetings.

Pioneer Valley Charter is (again) requesting a review of the Commissioner's decision to deny their expansion. The backup does a good job of reviewing their history, but here are my notes from last year's review before the Board, which did not go well (for them).

There will be an end of year report from the State Student Advisory Council.

There will be an update on the FY20 budget through the Senate's passage; the budget now, of course, is in conference committee.

Not for discussion but there is also an update on implementation of the LOOK Act and (one of my annual favorites) the list of non-operating districts; those towns will tuition out all of their studentsto other districts. 

Worcester Public Schools FY20 budget round two (not a liveblog)

I came in about an hour into budget deliberations, just in time to hear a motion from Mr. O'Connell to cut $500,000--yes, half a million dollars--from the adminstration account.
That's this account:

That's also this account (at the top):

(and in that case, note that the majority of what is reported as central administrative spending under the foundation budget is spent by the city and credited as school spending.
This isn't fiscal prudence; this is just reckless disregard for good governance.

A motion to cut $20,000 from rentals earlier apparently passed. I don't know who made the motion, but presumably it wasn't made in connection with any real facilities planning despite this:

Miss Biancheria made a motion to cut the $85,000 for the superintendent's secretary; that seems oddly personal.
After specifically asking about the funding level for substitute secretarial coverage and receiving the answer that the account was still underbudgeted (I believe she was told it should be $150K and was $126K; I'll check), Miss Biancheria then cut $10,000 from secretarial coverage.

This, added to the $20K cut from legal last session, then came to $50K, which was added to professional development, which you will no doubt hear about this summer.
You will probably also hear of their "no" votes from Miss Biancheria and Mr. O'Connell, as the budget passed 5-2.
That's on a budget of $364,928,023; including grants, it is $420,886,178. It is a 4.9% increase over FY20.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

Remember, the budget session starts at 4 pm. The School Committee received an update of the recommended account sequence, which notes the changes made thus far.
They've got...most of the budget to get through. Past practice is they roll through budget until 6, recess to executive session, come back at 7 for the regular session, and then finish the budget as needed. There is not, however, a posted executive session, so maybe they'll just keep rolling with budget. Though it isn't on the posted agenda on the school website, there is an executive session on the city website: negotiations with aides and monitors, and a clarification and accretion petition from the EAW on large bus drivers (these clarify who is or is not in a bargaining unit...perhaps this is in relation to possible changes in who runs transportation?).
The regular agenda can be found online here.
I did some tweeting over the weekend on the agenda, if you want a short version.

Worcester FY20: building by building staffing changes

In the back of the Worcester Public Schools' budget book is a building-by-building budget, beginning on page 283. If you have children in the schools, you may want to take a look at your children's school budget. Do remember that, particularly in elementary schools, staffing can change over the summer, depending on enrollment; most elementary changes are due to enrollment changes yearly in any case. There is a formula citywide for how schools are staffed which begins on page 400.

Worcester Public Schools FY20 budget deliberations round one

It's 4:10 and the committee is all here but the superintendent is not...the budget is here; I've stuck the account order ("recommended") here.
And it looks like they may be starting at 4:15...
Posting as they go