But wait, there's more!

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

Here's a rundown on the highlights:

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

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

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

$3. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liveblog: Finance and Operations closes FY21 and talks transportation

 And the agenda is here. 

posting as we go once it starts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 There are two Worcester Public Schools meetings this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worcester School Committee legislative breakfast on FY22

 The agenda including presentation and link to the online meeting is here. 
though it looks like Mr. Allen updated the presentation again, so this isn't the actual presentation; I'll get a link to it  I've put it over here and I've updated this now with some screenshots.

Binienda: focus on the October 1 enrollment
Kindergartners who took a gap year
support hold harmless for FY22
About $11M shortage in our budget if we're held to last year's count
children did not come because of the pandemic
very important item, especially for Worcester

Allen: presentation will use the House 1 version of the budget
one legislative ask around hold harmless and enrollment 
framing: unprecedent enrollment decline
lower than average inflation rate
important how we plan for preK and K enrollment for next year

FY22 budget less than FY21 before budget cuts
pandemic related enrollment decline

restarts SOA enactment
1/7th of target goal rates for next year

federal and state stimulus funding

new staffing and resource changes

enrollment 1058 student enrollment decline 4.2%
of that 24.3% is prek and K (746 students)

2.8% decline in grades 1-6 (316); not clear if that is a one year thing or sustainable
secondary levels essentially flat

state saw 37,363 (3.9% decline)
8200 students over prior ten years "obviously this is a pandemic related decline)
17,197 was prek and K
17,332 grades 1-6

decline significantly in enrollment of Worcester students in local private schools
St. Paul's 32%
St. John's 17.7%
Nativity 6.6%
Worcester Academy 34.4%

WPS enrollment decline costs $9.5M

inflation is an increase of $6M
SOA adds in $18M
nets $15M increase

drop of SOA funding was balanced out by one time cuts which now need to be added back

baseline budget for next year $386M
increase of only $180K
need about $11.6M

really should have seen an $25M budget increase over last year

biggest change for us is low income enrollment based on 185% of federal poverty level
state needs to figure out how capture low income of students going forward
we had more students counted under our low income count because of the pandemic related enrollment decline
one seventh phase in in House 1
two biggest changes are low income, both in count and in rate phase in

would expect to see a $24M annual increase over seven year phase in, holding enrollment flat

of that $10M is inflation and $14M in SOA
instead we're just seeing $11M due to enrollment drop

hold harmless enrollment and hold harmless funding
enrollment decline effecting many communities across the state
bubble of student enrollment next year, but funding is declining instead
enrollment decline is causing a $9.5M drop in budget
puts it back to $24.8M as needed
holding enrollment harmless allows for districts to absorb the return of students 
then reconciles the budget for FY23

at a minimum, there should be a pothole (foundation reserve) for coverage of that shift until foundation budget catches up following year

Sen. Chandler: having a bubble; what about staffing?
Allen: that's why hold harmless enrollment is so important
may need staffing additions; otherwise may possibly need cuts
"it's to not have the foundation budget...we won't have the resources to support [students coming back]"
Chandler: "it's a statewide problem, and it's one that we should be considering in our statewide budget as well"

DESE Financial update at MASBO

Circuit breaker: Jay Sullivan

circuit breaker relief email has gone out to districts: this fiscal year costs must be 25% over cost last year for circuit breaker

60-65 districts that file on an annual basis

hopefully by end of this month should be filed

Gov's budget: budget will go through a number of iterations through House and Senate
may or may not use ESSER funds for local contribution
DESE will continue to plan as if that's going to happen; guidance will be available, but not yet
Still not (and won't be) sure

House 1 Ch. 70 proposal: Rob O'Donnell and Rob Hanna

slides are on DESE Ch.70 page (this set is updated as of today)
updated Ch.70 formula workbook, as well, as to how ESSER II funds should be available to regional district members
Ch.70 aid increases over $197.7M over FY21
1/7th implementation of SOA
low income up to 185% threshold (FY16 % of low income student enrollment)
assumed in district sped enrollment percentages (increased to 1/7th)
inflation of 1.48% (2.78% for insurance from three year GIC average)
Hold harmless for 20 districts that would have otherwise lost aid under SOA implementation 
local contribution reduced 100% of gap for those over target
CEY of 175% of foundation or more required to contribute to 82.5% of foundation
House 1 allows districts to use up to 75% of ESSER II funds for their local contribution increases
Members of regional district may deem a proportional share of 75% of the regional district's ESSER II grant toward increases in required contribution 
charter tuition based on same foundation rates
implements 100/60/40 schedule for charter reimbursement (year 1): 75% of total entitlement based on current projections: $143.5M (will be 90% in FY23, 100% in FY24)
charter tuition being reduced by per pupil required local contribution that can be supported by each sending district's ESSER II award (reduction statewide of $7.5M)
Charters then asked to offset with their own ESSER funding
allocations of coronavirus funding $53M statewide just over $50M in funding for districts ($25 per pupil + $75 per low income pupil) 
two equal payments starting this month (later) 
No grant applications needed but for eligible expenses; only for use in FY21 (so by June); thus can go back to July 2020, must be spent by June 2021
to be put in separate account "available to school committee without further appropriation"
will at least need to be reported on End of Year report; may be other reporting requirement
"we're going to have all kinds of pages in the end of year report, starting in FY21"
Federal CvRF next round of reporting due March 5

Transportation: Craig Delmonte:
district that provides own transportation should have heard from recently
how districts are reporting transportation costs on End of Year report
accurate measure of claiming for costs under circuit breaker for districts that provide own transportation 
working on cost per ride across Commonwealth

Questions:
FY21 rural aid distribution: no info as yet
if my charter reimbursement is going down, what's up? Your tuition must be going down
ESSER funding: available to school committee up to 75% of total amount to cover increase
aid to state and local governments potentially coming in President's bill
150 districts that haven't drawn down CvRF
if you're funding right at net school spending, 
First time in history that a grant will be counting towards NSS
"you're going to spend the money, and then journal enter the money in your EOY report"
ESSER II use is putting off the local funding of the increase in local contribution, which will need to be picked up the following year

December 2020 Board of Ed: update on budget

 Bell 
state and federal resources
FY21 budget was signed late last week: approach six month mark of fiscal '21
pretty consistent what we had seen in the conference report
$53M grant in conference committee was going to go out formulaic aid
Gov instead in a grant structure that DESE would administer with Executive Office "to help remedy all of the concerns that have been relayed...over learning loss and additional needs"
circuit breaker fully funded; reimbursement as high as have been
federal side: Congress has to act by Friday on spending
different versions of bills 
working with administration on FY22 state budget

Peyser: administration of $53M "a more targeted and strategic approach" to learning loss "in particular as well as other challenges"

"I thought we should be the envy of the world with our public schools."

 In 2005, when A Man Without a Country was published, author Kurt Vonnegut was interviewed by David Brancaccio on PBS. In the course of the interview, he said the following: 

...these people don't know anything about anything. They're incompetent. And, so, yes, they are getting a lot of our guys killed. But, also, they've emptied our treasuries. You know, we can't fix our roads. We can't fix the schools. 

It's my dream of America with great public schools. I thought we should be the envy of the world with our public schools. And I went to such a public school. So I knew that such a school was possible. Shortridge High School in Indianapolis. Produced not only me, but the head writer on the I LOVE LUCY show. 

And, my God, we had a daily paper. We had a debating team. Had a fencing team. We had a chorus, a jazz band, a serious orchestra. And all this with a Great Depression going on. And I wanted everybody to have such a school. And, yeah, we could afford it if we didn't spend all the money on weaponry.

The full interview, incidentally, is here, and is well worth reading. 

Vonnegut graduated from high school in 1940. As he notes, he was attending school during the 1930's...the Great Depression. 
What did we do in the Great Depression?

We built buildings like this:

Vernon Hill Elementary
(Providence Street Junior High)
Built 1931

We ran three sessions a day at Commerce High School, ensuring that people who might not have a job were getting education and further training for when jobs were available again.

High school dropout rates dropped.

Enrollment in public education rose. 

While there were initial cuts, by the middle of the decade, the argument that public education was a center value of the country, and one that needed to be supported, had won out.

The Joint Committee on Ways and Means meets tomorrow. I wish I knew what words would convince those in charge of making decisions that the last thing one should do during the economic downturn from a worldwide pandemic is underfund public education.
Needs are rising, not dropping.
And the Governor's budget does not keep the commitment to our kids.
In the middle of a storm, you protect what is most vulnerable. At least you're supposed to. 

I would like us, too, to be the envy of the world with our public schools. 

FY21: Back to the drawing board AGAIN

The Joint Committee on Ways and Means is holding yet another roundtable this morning in hopes of updating what is known about FY21. This is, of course, impacted from last night's round of tweets from President Trump which left the prospects for federal aid for states...unclear? dim? unclear, maybe.
I'll have to jump off (as I'm presenting on Ch. 70, oh irony, at noon, but I'll do what I can here and then catch up later, as needed).

updating as we go
Michlewitz
where our economy has stayed steady and where it has fallen off
uncertainty has been frustrating for all of us "to say the least"
particularly frustrating that the President has cut off negotiations
$92B sent to fed in 2018 alone
President "should stop referencing us as a blue state and start calling us a green state"
in past downturn, MA found itself in a strong position; will not be the case this time

Rodriguez: April roundtable gave a clear sense of challenges
precarious position: still no help from federal government, high unemployment, ravaged by health 
revenues up a meagre 1%
"glaring federal dysfunction and ongoing health emergency"
need to "close an anticipated budget shortfall without federal assistance for at least the foreseeable future."

Secretary Heffernan: recently filed close of FY20 (supplemental budget)
"really base a lot of what we do...on what you all have to say for us today"

DoR Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder testifying: outlook for tax revenues for FY21
Forecasting $25.918B to 28.787B in tax revenue, which could be as high as $5.3B
considerable uncertainty in these forecast
"deep recession"
real GDP decreased by over 4% in first Q, 31.6% in second calendar Q
"naturally" resulted in decline in tax revenue
$2.4T: fiscal support from federal gov't
Move of taxation deadlines from April; "actual collections by themselves did not determine" tax revenues; legislation involved
I cannot even hope to keep up with the numbers he's citing here...going to have to wait to have it in writing...
"confronted with an array of unknowns" for tax collection in FY21
"will generate multiple scenarios on which" tax projections are based
Moody's and IHS Markets have created projections
$7.27B collection for September after adjustment (legislation counted some as FY20)
$69M more than FY20
So far, FY21 agreement has not been revised or adjusted
based on recent projections, DoR now forecasts FY21 in range $25.918B to $28....B
Decline from FY20:  4.1% to 12.4% OR $2.67B to $5.233B less than estimate
"disconnect between stock market and real economy"
now running through the subsets of the tax revenue, which I'm not going to write notes on
"there is considerable uncertainty in these forecasts"
"unprecedented challenges in revenue projections for the Commonwealth"
Michlewitz: why are we having projections for a drop when revenue is up?
A: several components of tax revenue
"the question is, is it going to be sustainable"
"a lot of uncertainties on the withholding side" as job market, unemployment
"withholding happens to be one of the major categories"
"so far numbers are good...but great caution of the remainder of the year"
Rodriguez: range of FY21 forecasted revenue: "that's over a 2 1/2 billion delta"
"we need to select a finite number" for the budget; why such a material difference?
And if you had to pick a number, what would it be?
Synder: a lot will depend on stimulus, as it comes
How the national and Commonwealth's economy responds to any amount of stimulus
"I appreciate the consternation, if you will, on such a wide range"
vendors put more weight on higher end of revenue than on lower end
more than 50% probability on higher end (from vendors)
but when did those models come out? Since last night?

Goldberg (in talking about pensions): "the stock market is not the economy"
And then I had to jump off to present on Chapter 70. You might, though check:
State House News Service
MassLive
Commonwealth Magazine
Boston Globe

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

Yes, we send state funding to districts that aren't in need

The Mass Business Alliance for Education along with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce today released a report about the shares of state funding that go to districts that aren't in need, presenting this as a contributing to the growing gap among districts, and one we can ill-afford during the pandemic. You can read WBUR's coverage here and State House News Service's here.

The funding streams here being discussed are hold harmless and minimum aid, the 17.5% minimum state contribution towards district foundation budgets, and below effort gap funding (which is both less of an issue and mainly ends up being progressive, so less here about that).

To take these entirely out of order: the 17.5% minimum aid I have always heard argued as "this way everyone has some skin in the game." But, here's the deal: 

...it's really tough to argue that Cambridge getting 6% of its budget from the state makes it particularly interested in how the state funds, say, Holyoke (save Cantabrigians being interested out of the goodness of their hearts, of course). And it's also hard to argue that anyone is being particularly well-served by the state being required to fund that portion of Cambridge's budget.

I'm picking on Cambridge, incidentally, because Cambridge can fund their foundation budget entirely out of local resources more than twice over. That puts Cambridge in a very rare class, but there are many districts that can fund their foundation budgets and more entirely through local resources. As the report says: 

Of these 157 municipalities, 104 can fully meet their foundation budget obligations from local revenue; the other 53 can fund between 82.5% and 100% of their foundation budget from local revenue, according to the state’s calculation

As a result of the state funding what they do, those districts simply have additional resources to spend on schools; local communities don't reduce their local funding due to the state aid.

As I have discussed when we have talked about Boston before, there are districts--add here Cambridge and Somerville--that are both well-resourced and have lots of children in need. As I note in that post, contrary to the footnote in the report, the needs of the district are included in the calculation of the foundation budget just as they are for every other district, so to calculate from that is the calculate from an equitable place. 

That's the one that's a little more straightforward, to my mind, that the other big one here, which is hold harmless and minimum aid. As I mention in the above post, there's no district that is a greater beneficiary of that than Boston (not a surprise: it's the largest district, but also not a poor one). It's also, though, what has been keeping many smaller, rural (and not as rural) districts with declining enrollment afloat. I've shared this slide from Granby before: 

That big space over the line is the amount of required spending over the foundation budget; the reason a district ends up being required to spend more than its foundation budget is if it's getting that additional money as state aid. That would be hold harmless and minimum aid. This is how we end up with districts that are required to spending 125% and such of their foundation budgets.

It's been well covered here and elsewhere, of course, that a decline in student enrollment doesn't lead to a decline in costs in any sort of a straight line. Losing, for example, ten or twenty students from across the entire enrollment doesn't mean you can cut a teaching position, let alone close a building. 

At the same time, smaller districts carry some of the same costs as larger districts do==you still need a building and custodians and a superintendent and school nutrition staff--and that can make smaller districts expensive, on a per pupil basis to run. 
There isn't a neat and tidy answer to this--and anyone who thinks there is may not realize quite how much space some of our districts in western Mass already occupy. There is, of course, the report due (do we know if any of that work is actually still happening?) that looks at rural schools as part of the Student Opportunity Act. 
I do, though, want to issue a preliminary warning to any who would argue that you can't possibly operate only on a foundation funded budget that some of us already do, which is not to say I recommend it. 

The main point here, of course is that:

• Massachusetts prides itself on a progressive funding system for schools.
• These are not progressive funding streams.
• The state says it doesn't have enough funding for education (or anything) right now.
• These are luxuries we as a state can't afford.

That doesn't mean that this would be popular. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be right. 

I should also note that this was the final of the recommendations Bruce D. Baker, Mark Weber, and Drew Atchison wrote of back in June in Kappan. 

What happened at this week's meeting (including a few things that maybe you missed?)

Thursday evening, our Worcester School Committee meeting started at four, and we got out of executive session at close to 11, so forgive, if you would, the delay in posting anything here. I did want to make a few notes here on what happened, as I've generally been behind in posting here, and these are my notes as much as anything. These are not in agenda order, for what it's worth, though the agenda is here. 

BUDGET:

First off, of course, the Committee approved on a 6-1 vote the budget cuts as proposed by administration. Understanding that wrangling with a full agenda can be a bit much, I put just the budget cut memo here so you can see what it is. We can't say this enough:

As I said last night: it's also just completely unfair that this massively mismanaged pandemic crashed the economy the year we finally got the foundation budget bill passed and signed. #MAEdu #FBRC #mapoli https://t.co/ealRTN81ij

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) August 29, 2020

Yes, if you decide to homeschool, it will hit your district's budget (but next year, and maybe?)

I've gotten this question often enough where I thought I should put it somewhere:

A family deciding to withdraw their family from the district and homeschool their children will impact that district's budget, but for the following year. 
Each October, districts submit their enrollment to the state. It is those enrollments (by grade, but also by everything else: English learning, poverty, program) that determine the next year's foundation budget, which in turn is what is used to calculate state aid.
Thus a family withdrawing a child this August (2020) won't be counted this October (2020) which hits the FY22 budget, calculated in January 2021 (remember, we're in FY21 now!).

HOWEVER: the state has a "hold harmless" provision in Chapter 70 aid, now written into the Student Opportunity Act, which prevents a district from losing state aid due to loss of enrollment.

Would the state still do that if there were a massive exit from districts? I don't know.

Further HOWEVER, a family deciding to participate in a district's remote learning option does not have this impact. You can choose to keep your child home, have them do the district's remote learning, and you'll still count as enrolled and won't hit the budget. It is only if you are fully homeschooling your child--determining curriculum, grading, and the like--that causes a child not to count in the district enrollment.

Every district in Massachusetts is required to have a remote learning program this year.

More on FY21 numbers

Yesterday, the Division of Local Services in the Department of Revenue released the following email from the Secretary of Administration and Finance:

Dear Local Official, 

I am writing to share that information about Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) funding for Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) and Chapter 70 education aid is now available on the Division of Local Services website. 

While critical information from the federal government is still needed in order to finalize a full fiscal year budget for the Commonwealth, the Baker-Polito Administration and the Legislature are committing to no less than the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) level of funding for UGGA and Chapter 70 education aid as a baseline amount for FY21 funding. 

The FY21 funding commitment also includes Chapter 70 increases for inflation and enrollment that will keep all school districts at foundation, under the law as it existed for FY20, providing an additional $107 million in aid over FY20. This increase comes in addition to approximately $450 million in new federal supports for K-12 schools to assist with educating students during the pandemic. Please click here to view the UGGA and Chapter 70 amounts for each municipality. Local officials with related questions can email databank@dor.state.ma.us. 

Sincerely, 

Michael J. Heffernan 

Secretary of Administration and Finance

You can find the referenced spreadsheet online here.  

This was followed up by an email from House Ways and Means Budget Director David Bunker, sharing this spreadsheet with House members, and writing: 

The attached spreadsheet, put together by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F) for greater context, displays the main sources of funding that would be available to districts at this time through both the tentative agreement on local aid and the larger distributions of federal funds previously announced by the administration. The fourth column of that sheet shows FY20 Chapter 70, which for most districts becomes the FY21 baseline Chapter 70 funding under the tentative agreement. Under the agreement, no operating district would receive less funding than in FY20. The next column shows, for districts which receive additional funds as a result of increasing the foundation budget by inflation and adjusting for enrollment trends, how much more those districts would receive as baseline Chapter 70. The following column shows the distribution of federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grants, using the Title I formula. The seventh column shows the $202M of Coronavirus Relief Funds distributed by the Governor to meet school reopening needs. The final two columns are: a) the total of all previous spending amounts, and b) how much of an increase that total is for each district above FY20 Chapter 70. This is not intended to imply that these distributions of federal funds are a substitute for our statutory and constitutional Chapter 70 commitments, but they do provide important resources to school districts at the opening of the school year while we continue to take stock of the economic and revenue changes wrought by COVID-19. and our capacity to make more expansive investments in education and local aid. 

In addition to federal ESSER and CRF funds identified in the spreadsheet, A&F has identified the following smaller sources of funding also made available to districts in recent months: • $16M for ESSER Discretionary Funds; • $25M for Remote Learning Technology Grants; • Up to $15M for Competitive Federal Funds. 

Despite the almost unprecedented fiscal climate, the amount of state and federal aid allocated thus far ensures the administration and the legislature, as well as municipalities and school districts, can continue prioritizing significant investments in Massachusetts students. 

While the tentative agreement was intended to provide a baseline for school district budgeting, and a clear commitment to maintaining the central promise of Chapter 70 to keep every district at a minimum funding level as defined by the foundation budget, it should not be interpreted as abandoning the key commitments to equity made by the Student Opportunity Act (SOA). We remain committed to full implementation of the SOA Act, and its historic investments in increasing foundation budget assumptions both to more fully reflect actual school district spending, and to more fully meet the educational needs of our most historically under-resourced students. As we work towards finalizing an FY21 budget, we will continue to examine all opportunities to meet that obligation, including any additional federal funds made available to the state. Upon completing that review, we will reexamine our ability to move forward with the SOA, and will use the first available additional dollars, if any, to begin moving forward with the implementation of SOA.

If this is all sounding rather defensive to you, then I think you're right. 

Districts in the spring had, in many cases, to shut down and deep clean their buildings. They had to push out a ton of technology. They ran a lot of professional development for teachers. They emptied their buildings of protective equipment when the hospitals had shortages.
And per the Commissioner's directive? We paid everybody.
For fall, districts are having to buy a large amount of protective equipment. They're buying plexiglass and other separations. They might be buying furniture. They're scrambling to staff additional nurses and custodians. They need signs and cleaning supplies.
But we also might go remote and many are going hybrid, so we still need technology, and PD for teachers on that, and supplies for students at home.

So, should you be wondering where that CARES and COVID funding is going, you have your answer. And those, let's recall, are grant funds. They're one time. They're spent and they're gone. It's pretty infuriating to have them all added up nicely on a spreadsheet as if those numbers all were equivalents. They aren't.

Actually running the system--more to the point, actually staffing the system--isn't any less expensive than it was last year. In fact, of course, we need more staff than we have.
And no, it doesn't only cost 2% more than last year, either. That's not how much insurance or transportation went up, for certain, and it doesn't cover most other cost areas, either.

The commitment to SOA is nice, but districts start schools in six weeks. We can't staff based on promises. By the time the state passes a 'real' budget, we will have finished the first quarter of school. Classes are not only assigned, but have been running. 
And, always remember: most of a school district's costs are in staff. 

You might remember the warnings from earlier this spring that flat cuts disproportionally hit higher poverty communities. Having state aid only go up by enrollment and inflation across the board does, of course, hit the districts that are more heavily dependent on state aid. If most of your money is local, you didn't lose that much off of June yesterday.
Worcester lost $14M in operating costs yesterday.

So, it's nice to have numbers. These aren't numbers that help us.

You'll be hearing more about this.

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.

Worcester School Committee: Budget update and fall planning meeting

The agenda is posted here.
Allen: To the best that we know at this time
ASBO /AASA costs that would be needed for cleaning, supplies, nursing, custodial
average district of $1.7M; 10-14% of our size
estimate for us would be $12.7M

Two Worcester meetings next week

On Monday night the 29th at 6:30, the Doherty building committee meets to vote on the preferred schematic design.

On Thursday the 2nd at 5, the Worcester School Committee is having a special meeting specifically to discuss the state's guidance and get an update on the budget.

Leave your worries on the doorstep

Sunset over Coes Pond on the last day of school 2020

...it isn't good when you start pulling blog post titles from the Depression era, but it's definitely looking grim. Here's The Atlantic in an article titled "The Second Great Depression" speaking of one of the four factors that are concerning economists and weighing down the economy:

A third factor behind a possible second Great Depression is the budget crisis facing states and cities. The federal government does not have to balance its ledger year to year, and perpetually spends more than it takes in. Yet every state but Vermont and most cities and towns are required to remain in the black. Right now, sales taxes, real-estate-transfer taxes, income taxes, fines and fees—they are all collapsing, leaving local governments with a budget gap expected to total $1 trillion next year. Without help from Washington, this will necessarily mean massive service cuts and job losses: namely, an estimated 5.3 million job losses.

The shrinking of the government at the state and local level has already started, as Congress dithers on providing fiscal aid. Michigan is facing a $3 billion budget gap this year and a $4 billion one next year: It has instituted a work-share plan, asking two in three state employees to accept a partial furlough. In New Jersey, the government has asked 100,000 public workers to move to abbreviated schedules. Schools have already let go more workers than they did during the Great Recession, with nearly 500,000 positions lost.

In a piece looking at the need for a national response, the Education Trust notes: 

Now, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects states will face a $615 billion revenue shortfall over the next three years due to the pandemic. Scott said education funding makes up, on average, 40% of state budgets. Former Secretary of Education John King Jr. added during testimony in the hearing that districts get 90% or more of their funding from state and local dollars.

As I have posted before, the hit comes particularly hard on districts that are more dependent on state aid; from the same piece: 

“If you look historically," Roy said, "anytime we’ve had a severe recession whether it was the recession of the early 1980s or the recession of 2008 minorities and low-income Americans were always the ones who were most harmed.”

Back in Massachusetts, this of course was the year where we finally were beginning to implement the Student Opportunity Act; five years ago today, the Foundation Budget Review Commission was deliberating its first report.
Yesterday, though, the Division of Local Services of the Department of Revenue announced that July and August aid would be at the FY20 levels, meaning no implementation of any sort of FY21 budget with changes, so far. The concern of course is that this bodes ill for the rest of the budget:

"Not having this additional funding is a recipe for disaster at this point," Marie-Frances Rivera, president of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, told WGBH News.

"It's essentially $300 million that districts across the commonwealth" will lose, Rivera said, referring to the amount of money in the governor's pre-COVID budget for the Student Opportunity Act in fiscal 2021. That will affect mainly gateway cities who serve the most kids of color and low income kids and English language learners, she added.Those districts were expecting this infusion of cash, which they're not going to get," said Rivera.

It's with this in mind that 100 of us (and growing!) who are elected officials in Gateway Cities co-signed a letter written and organized by Roberto Jiménez-Rivera of the Chelsea School Committee urging state officials to prioritize funding of the Student Opportunity Act in the FY21 budget. Interviews with School Committee members from Holyoke, Springfield, and Chicopee via MassLive discuss why. As Tom Scott of MASS said in the Boston Globe this morning: 

“I don’t understand how people can reasonably plan for the scenarios they have,” Scott said.

This also raised the prospect of the lawsuit against the state that had been withdrawn coming back:

Peter Enrich, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law, and one of the attorneys who filed the suit, said the coalition waited to withdraw the lawsuit until after Baker introduced his budget in order to make sure the first year of the new formula was fully funded. But in the last couple of months, attorneys have started hearing from parents who are reporting that teachers are being laid off, their children did not get the services they were entitled to this spring and they worry about the fall. “From their perspective, a promise has been broken, so they’re turning to us and asking us to look at what their legal rights are,” Enrich said. 

Enrich said the same constitutional issues raised by the initial lawsuit – the right to an adequate education and disparities between districts – persist. “The Student Opportunity Act was a big enough step in the right direction on addressing those concerns that our sense was that it was not an appropriate time to continue litigation and we should leave it to the Legislature and governor to follow through on their commitments,” Enrich said. “But if they aren’t able to or they aren’t willing to, then those constitutional issues are still out there.” 

It's not the first time and it won't be the last that Senator Chang-Díaz summarizes it all:

“It’s the perfect storm for school systems that even as their costs are rising and they’re having to figure out totally new models for delivering the service… At that same moment, schools are confronted with the potential for drastic cuts."

Let me know if you find the sunny side of this street.  

Two to read

The first is this Politico piece describing the impossible position school districts are in right now:

School superintendents and principals are staring at an impossible equation. 

Governors are promising to put kids back in classrooms in a matter of weeks, but it’s mostly school officials stuck navigating the messy details of how to keep students and teachers safe and win over skeptical parents, while dealing with a budget crisis that is forcing layoffs and other cuts.

I genuinely don't know what more one can say than that: the situation is impossible. And state level leadership almost everywhere is making it harder rather than easier.

The second is this excellent Fresh Air (no pun intended) interview with epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, who stresses this:

“Over and over again, it's the air that we share with each other that is critical.”

Stay outside, stay apart, be sure you've got masks on when you're closer.

As we're all still looking for a budget in Massachusetts

As I tweeted out this morning, I think it's crucial for folks to understand that though their districts are passing budgets--as they are required to by state law!--districts, particularly those that are most dependent on state aid genuinely do not know what their budgets for next year will be.
We can't, without a state budget.
We're passing numbers and allocating funds, yes, but those may well not be where we end up.

This article in Commonwealth Magazine from Shira Shoenberg gives a possibility on the state budget that indicates we may not know for some time:

 ...behind the scenes, state policymakers appear to be discussing a budget that is done jointly and for an interim time period, although the exact length is uncertain. 

On the short end, doing an interim budget through July or August would give lawmakers a chance to see if Congress passes another federal stimulus bill before the August recess. It would also let the Department of Revenue collect last year’s state income taxes, since the deadline for filing was extended from April 15 to July 15. 

On the longer end, there could be a political incentive to craft a budget that goes through November, so lawmakers do not have to pass a full-year austerity budget before they face reelection. Doing a budget for just half a year could also give lawmakers more time to monitor medical advances and know, for example, when a vaccine might become available, which could allow for a fuller economic reopening.

Were that the case, of course, we would not only be opening schools without knowing our budgets; we'd be running schools for several months without one.