Let's talk about city budget reporting

 Tonight, the Worcester City Council agenda has a report on FY22; remember, that's the fiscal year that ended June 30. As City CFO Tim McGourthy notes, "while FY22 has ended, there are still year end transactions being processed that will change the final year-end financials from the attached reports." So we don't yet have the full picture here of where the city ended up for the full year.

I've always found the city's financial reports a little...opaque(?), so I thought I'd do a smidge of a post here on what you can see here of the Worcester Public Schools' financials. In order to do this, I cross-referenced this against the FY22 WPS budget financial section and the September (2021) budget update.

(Did you know that our budget updates have their own page? I use it a lot!)

As noted in the memo, the reason there's a difference between the adopted and actual (for the school lines) is the adopted budget (in June) was on the Governor's budget, and last year (like many years, though not this one!), the Legislature's conference committee budget increased (in particular) education. This is why both the School Committee and the City Council passed updated budgets later in the year.

For spending, you'll see the report looks like this:

So we have the adopted and actual as in the revenues, but why are there these divisions?

The answer is on page 124 of the FY22 budget:

(It's actually MGL Ch. 44, sec. 32)
So the city does that, and then replicates it again for the parts of our budget that don't "count" towards the city's required spending (the bulk of that is transportation).

Now, while the cost centers we pass the budget with cite those, so you can go through our budget and make this work, this isn't necessarily all that useful a way to think about our budget. This is really about all the City Council gets on their side when it comes to the city budget, though, which makes, I think, it more difficult to see where the money goes. That's how the municipal reporting works, though.

Tellingly (I'd say), the law itself says:

The foregoing shall not prevent any city, upon recommendation of the mayor and with the approval of the council, from adopting additional classifications and designations.

What happened at the last June Worcester School Committee meeting of 2022

 There were speeches and science awards and keys to the city, plus: 

Clock tower of Worcester City Hall at night
(Taken as I left last Thursday)

The agenda is here. Video of the regular session is here.

• We settled a contract with our 52 week secretaries (NAGE R1-156)
  
  
• We reported out on two subcommittees: the monthly F&O transportation update (which, note, is the final one at which there will be a "how short is Durham" report, as the contract ends on June 30); we also sent the transportation policies to subcommittee for redrafting, because they speak of contracted busing, and we won't have that anymore as of July 1.
  
  
• ...and the joint meeting F&O had with Council's Education committee. This was the meeting at which we took up the outstanding MOU between the district and the Worcester police department (we don't have one), as well as questions of salaries and district representation. Bill Shaner (scroll down; you are subscribing to Bill, right?) covered at the time here; the T&G covered it here. The Council recently sent the district question to subcommittee with what I will call decided lack of enthusiasm. 
  I do, though, want to say it was encouraging to have now-Acting City Manager Eric Batista show up at the joint committee meeting to talk about the MOU issue. 
  
  
• We renewed contracts with both of our legal district counsels; we have two: one for special education and civil rights, the other for labor law. And yes, they work for the School Committee, not the administration. 
  

Note that there are several items on there about the FY23 budget, which we passed at our 4 pm budget session. I want to take that up in a separate post. 

Also! Note that our transportation unit is currently voting on a two year contract; the School Committee has a meeting now posted for next Monday at 4:45 pm which will be just to respond to that ratification should it take place. That's to be sure it gets in before the end of the fiscal year Thursday! 

Top ten reasons to go to Wednesday's Finance and Operations meeting

 The agenda is here. This is the Zoom link and the password is 462049.

Here are ten reasons why you want to join us:

What's the big fuss on reading?

 This is not intended in any way to be exhaustive: this is a quick catch up.

If you're curious as to why Worcester's TLSS subcommittee was talking about their reading program for early elementary, Fountas and Pinnell, you maybe have avoided hearing about the latest round of the "reading wars." Without (as I said above) going into too much detail, the question over how young children are taught to read, and what works and what doesn't, is at question here.

From a Worcester perspective, the district has been using F&P in at least some schools for some time; you can, for example, find it cited in this 2015 document about district assessment. There's been a heavy investment in the program under the current administration; you might recall the deliberation and the School Committee's subsequent movement of funds away from such training (Irene Fountas is at Lesley University) during last year's budget. 

While the backup for the subcommittee only references the 2020 EdReports review of F&P, finding that it didn't align particularly well with the Common Core (or Massachusetts state, for that matter) standards, what's more core (I'd say) to the concern is what's discussed in the 2019 APM Reports piece on cued reading and related strategies: it's that it literally is not how our brains work. If you're going to read one thing, read that. Lucy Caukins (if you hear "Columbia Teachers' College" in this issue, it's probably Caukins) subsequently responded, while F&P doubled down. The backup for subcommittee quotes from F&P in conceding that some phonics might be necessary, but even that seems to make it clear that the question over cuing students as a strategy that (in layman's terms) teaches them to guess is one that they're not moving on. 

The motion coming out of TLSS this evening is for an updated report in June; there may well be further discussion Thursday night. 

On the FY22 quarterly transfers

 You didn't think I'd forgotten, did you?

At the last meeting of the Worcester School Committee, I gave the report from the Finance and Operations subcommittee meeting of February 9, which included the second quarter report, included $7.1M in transfers and an update on about $4M in ESSER funding for the current (FY22) budget year.

What does that mean? 

About every three months, administration gives an update to the F&O subcommittee on where the district is with the budget that was passed in June. That's not only how much has been spent from which account and how much then is left of what was budgeted; it's also a calculation done by the budget office of how much the district is projected to spend. In other words, given what we know--how many positions aren't filled, what services are running ahead or behind what was thought, and so forth--how much is the district probably going to actually spend in each account by the end of the fiscal year in June? 

This time--this was the second quarter report--there were some big shifts. More than anything else, that's due to two things, both of which we'd rather weren't true:

• We have--or had at the time of the report--263 positions that are open. Those are positions for which we budgeted, that we have the salary and health insurance funding for, that haven't been filled this year.
• Durham isn't running 27 of the routes that the district contractually requires of them. Routes that aren't run aren't paid for. 
  

All of us would rather have the staff positions filled and the school bus routes running. We don't, though, and so the transfers:

• took all of the funding so far for the positions--salary and health insurance--and moved them elsewhere. Thus (and Member Kamara asked this question at the meeting) no positions are cut through these transfers. 
• took all the funding through the end of the year for the bus routes and moved them elsewhere, as the expectation is that those routes will not be done this year by Durham.

That not only means that the district had the $7.1M to move (and you can see more on where and why in the quarterly report linked above), but it also means that the district has enough funding in the operational budget to cover just over $4M of what was supposed to be funded through ESSER funding as hold harmless this year.

What does that mean? Here's an analogy I used earlier this week; see if it helps.
Say you're running a regular household budget--salary coming in, expenses on things like rent and electricity going out--and something happens with your job. You expect that you aren't going to be earning as much for a time; maybe your hours get cut, but only for a few months. You have reason to expect that the money coming in will go back up.
At the same time, you have a tax refund come in, or someone sends you a gift of money; it's a set amount of one time funding. You decide that you can use this one time money to fill the hole of that expected loss of income.
After you make this plan, something happens that cuts your expenses through loss of service. Say you can't get cable any more. That also means, though, that you don't have to pay for that service anymore, and as a result, you use that savings to cover the loss of your income.
What that means is now you have that extra money still around. 
That's what has happened here: the district has lost service (positions that are unfilled and bus routes that aren't run); we're using that savings to cover expenses that we were going to use ESSER for. Now that ESSER goes back to the unused and to-be-committed category. 

And that is where we are on the budget in the third quarter.

Liveblog: January Board of Ed on the budget

 Bell: "while we await the Governor's FY23 state budget proposal" (TOMORROW!)
working through FY22 budget
enrollment reserve: close to finalizing a recommendation on a methodology for that
will go to Secretary and Governor for review before going to the Legislature (wait, it has to do what?)
$55M Legislative bill passed:
HVAC, Compensatory services, educator diversity initiative, 53 separate Legislative earmarks

close to $3B in federal funding being managed
I missed how much of ESSER I has been drawn down; I'll ask
30% in ESSER II out
75% of applications approved for ESSER III
not yet approved: a lot of construction related; have to ensure that they adhere to state and federal procurement
$1.66B; approved about 3/4 of a billion of those funds out so far

looks like further Legislative action: masking and testing funding; not yet on Governor's desk

Peyser now arguing that DESE's isn't the bottleneck
districts enabled "to spend money as its needed"

Moriarty asking about outreach to families on compensatory services

Bell: let's be smart about getting it out there
$100M HVAC can be spent until 2027
even modest HVAC construction isn't going to happen overnight
"some of these things are multi year in nature"
Hills: school committee members are very focused on the cliff
to a large degree "money is fungible at the local level"
cliff impacts spending at local level "to a degree maybe not clear at this level"
"this is an issue that more people are following, what the real cliff is, than might be apparent"

Bell: local governance are still running their local appropriations
SOA: there are going to be additional funds coming
"how do you thoughtfully link up" those funding
DESE also managing private school federal support

Peyser: 2027 aligns with full implementation of SOA 
front load their investments that they might have to otherwise phase in
when funds were appropriated, was concern that there would be a hole
in addition to the one time COVID related expenses, a chance to front load

West: deadline to spending? or obligating?
Bell: expenditure dates

Hills: SOA plans? 
Riley: submitted. Have been very clear to districts about this phase in pick up of SOA from federal funding

AND ADJOURNED

Notes from the first meeting of the Worcester School Committee

 This blog started, of course, as a blog of the Worcester School Committee, 'though it started back when it wasn't possible for most of us to liveblog anything, back when I would lug a (heavy!) laptop to the public gallery at Worcester City Hall, write things up, and post only when I got home. I did liveblog some of the meetings I was in; I have done less of that during this past term, partly because juggling the multiple screens during a meeting is a bit much. I do continue to use this blog as my record of what's been going on, however, so I intend to continue to write up as I can what I can.

You can find Thursday's agenda for the first meeting of the new term here.

We were a bit late coming out of executive session--a quick look at the final page of the agenda, which spells out why we were in exec will tell you why--as we're both in successor negotiations and in COVID era negotiations at the same time.

We did have comment from EAW President Roger Nugent, on a few more requests for shared sick bank days. We also had an IA comment on their still-outstanding retro pay; the IA unit was the final one to settle, and thus the lengthy process of updating their pay is still in train. As Mayor Petty noted at the meeting, this is in part due to the city's ancient financial processing system; it was due to staffing issues in payroll (including having a lengthy time before a new manager of payroll was hired by the superintendent after our long-serving one retired in the spring). 

The first report--and I'd say the highlight of the meeting--was a report from our student reps on student sentiment, as gathered through a student survey. I'm going to insert copies of their issues slides below as images: 

The top five issues are mental health (more than half cited it), COVID, nutrition, facilities, and student activities. They also added transportation, as that's already being discussed. 

Each of the slides makes requests and then adds student quotes to the issue.
For mental health, the requests are safe space accessibility; promote resources; mental health awareness/training; expand wellness programming.

For COVID, the requests are social distancing procedures; supplying high quality masks; make-up work guidelines; more hand sanitizing areas.

For transportation, the requests are expand bus routes to students within the two mile radius.
For facilities, the requests are not locking bathrooms, making single use bathrooms accessible, examining HVAC in schools.

For student activities, the request is to enhance them.

The report was sent, by section to subcommittees: COVID and facilities and transportation went to F&O, mental health to TLSS, (and I think bathrooms may have gone to Governance for policy work? I'll have to check). 

The T&G featured this discussion in their coverage of the meeting. One of the things that was mentioned several times by students in their presentation was that in some cases, we have resources or answers to things, but students don't know of them. And if students don't know, it is as if we don't have them. UPDATE: And speaking of that, it comes up in today's Boston Globe article that spent a day with Stacia Zoghbi!

I won't recapitulate my arguments here, but I do think bathroom access is a basic human rights issue, and it makes me furious that we have to even have this discussion. 
I do want to say how fantastically grounding it was for the students to be directing the discussion, and on areas that are under School Committee purview. I'm so grateful that they're putting the time and work into this for the district.

Our second report of the evening was an update on the Barr Foundation-funded Portrait of a Graduate work. This report, which starts on page 44 of the agenda, went through again what this is, with a bit of an update at the end as to next steps. They'll be back in March with a draft.

Both F&O and the superintendent's search reported out: F&O on the ESSER hearing and the search on the public input sessions with the search consultant. Let me recommend the presentation that F&O received back in December on ESSER plans. 

Ms. McCullough had filed several athletic items which came back. Athletic eligibility was recommended to not be changed at this time. Coaches salaries will go to negotiations. She'd also asked about athletic spending; the backup we received was a record of spending. I believe the intent is to take this up with budget.

We voted to settle our bottom line for the FY22 fiscal year, which, yes, is the year that we're about half through. This is $2.25M higher than the budget we voted in June. You can find the full backup starting on page 103. The reason for the change is pretty straightforward: the city budget, and thus the district budget, was based on the Governor's budget. The Governor's budget has often been not what happens for schools, and that was true for this fiscal year again; the Legislature agreed to implement 1/6 of the Student Opportunity Act, while the Governor had budgeted for only 1/7. That's a $2.25M difference for us, and thus the update (which we knew in June would be coming; we just have to wait for the city to set the tax rates first). 

(I asked offline, by the way, if we should make a fuss over this, and it sort of doesn't really matter; by the time we pass our budget, there's usually a good indication of what the Legislature is going to agree on, so even if the line we pass isn't actually it, we know and can plan for what it is going to be.) 

We then had a number of items filed by members for further or future action:

• Mrs. Clancey filed two items to do with safety and building access, stemming from the Doherty High incident last month. She's requesting a report back on safety and security around entering and exiting the schools, and an update on the role of security guards, including their hours.
• Ms. Mailman asked--and the committee agreed--to have members address one another as "Member" which was amended to "School Committee Member" in meetings. 
  Our name plates are going to simply have our full names.
• Ms. McCullough requested that we consider participating in the Practice Safe Skin Program through UMass, which is a sunscreen program.
• Ms. Kamara asked that we set up COVID testing programs in each of the four quadrants. This is a great idea that we don't have the resources to do, which was the response of administration. As I also had filed an item asking for a COVID update as a standing item at each meeting, we took that up more generally. She asked for the protocols around COVID positive employees.
  The superintendent gave us the update on COVID positive cases: between 1/14 and 1/20, there were 936 positive students, 36 quarantined students, and 922 test and stay students; and 142 positive employees, 1 quarantining, and 43 test and stay. 
  Superintendent Binienda also confirmed that the district will not be switching to the new voluntary home testing protocol the state has put together. 
  I asked that the reminder about masking requirements go to school staff as well as students, as I've received a number of student complaints that staff aren't properly masking (and the balance of power is such that students aren't in the same position on reminders). I also asked if we could get a report back from Honeywell, which is currently doing an analysis of our HVAC systems, if the portable ionization/filtration units that had been in the old South High school could or should be moved to the cafeterias of the schools that don't currently have those, as many of us are concerned about lunch being the most dangerous time of the day for transmission of COVID.
• Ms. Kamara asked that the position of chair and vice chair of subcommittees be clarified; this was going to Governance, so it will be taken up with the rules at their next meeting, as will my requested addendum that we also define the subcommittee's realms.
• I sent policy DK to Finance and Operations so we can align it with the city charter (If you have ever heard me talk about why some city school committee members don't have to learn about warrants, you'll know why. I can do a post on it later.)
• I sent an item on considering new and reoccurring building needs to the joint committee we have with the City Council (and have I mentioned how thrilled I am that Councilor Nguyen is chairing the Education subcommittee?)
• Two to discuss that a number of other districts have been moving forward on: eliminating the "test out" option for the employee vaccination requirement, and adding a requirement that students participating in extracurricular activities be vaccinated. (That last was proposed by WPS student athletes who are concerned about their friends and teammates.)
• I proposed a pilot of supplying menstrual supplies at secondary schools. The superintendent said that we do; as students don't know that we do--heck, I didn't know that we do!--it seems we have work to do, particularly around equity of access and not having to make special trips places and ask for them. It's going to Finance and Operations (budgetary impact).
• Something we're overdue for on our calendar: to consider what observances are recognized by the Worcester Public Schools. That went to Governance. 
• Another that came from students: To make provision within all WPS secondary schools of space for prayer during the day for those whose religious observance requires it; relatedly; to add to the student handbook notification to students and families that such provision will be made as needed. This is going to Governance for the policy aspect and to F&O for the physical plant question. 

We also voted to accept an FCC purchase of  $7,375,056 for the purchase of 23,192 Chromebooks, which, hey, is good news!

I want to do a separate post on two upcoming School Committee meetings, but let's let this one stand as it is! 

What happened last night at Worcester School Committee

When you wake up at 4:30, thinking you need a blog post…#WorcSchools pic.twitter.com/C34qnL8Ouh

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) December 17, 2021

 
The upshot, not in order, of what happened last night at Worcester School Committee (full agenda):

• Superintendent Binienda gave us an update on COVID, of which she said there has been "a great increase" in cases. For the week ending on Wednesday--the state measures from Thursday to Wednesday--there were 197 positive cases among students (up 10), with 33 quarantining (up 16). Among staff, there were 35 positive cases (up 8), with 2 quarantining (down 3). She gave us the test and stay numbers, but I missed one, so let me update that.
  There is a significant amount of contact tracing going on, as a result, which means the school nurses, who make these calls (which, can I just say, is really amazing, because it means that families are being contacted by someone who can actually answer their questions!), are working a LOT of hours. Our director of nursing, Debra McGovern, noted that we were being asked to approve a grant last night--which we did, and reconsidered it, so it can be spent immediately--which increases the dollar amount per hour nurses who are working those extra hours receive. 
  The district is emphasizing that all students need working devices that are going home. THIS DOES NOT MEAN CLASSES ARE GOING REMOTE.
  The superintendent was at pains to note that, per the Commissioner's meeting with superintendents this week, any remote decisions would be done ONLY for classes or schools--not entire districts---where positivity was "more than a half or three quarters" (that's quoting the superintendent) of the students. That would then need to be the recommendation of BOTH DPH AND the Commissioner's COVID group (?), and it would be for no more than eight days.
  PLEASE STOP SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT "ADVANCED APPLICATIONS" FOR REMOTE LEARNING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
  
  
• We took up the report from the City Manager's office on the removal of School Resource Officers from schools and the move to a liaison position (starts on page 113 on the agenda). A few additional notes on the report, which was referred to Finance and Operations for further discussion and updates with the City Council's Education Subcommittee:
     I would say that the Committee in general is supportive of the major change, which is removal of the police from the buildings. Mrs. Clancey rightly noted that the timeline on this--the report coming to the respective public bodies the week of December 13, with removal of the police happening at the end of the calendar year--left questions as to implementation of the plan regarding training and staffing in the buildings. While there was a response that some of that training will happen during January (if I was understanding that correctly), this is concerning.
    Though the liaisons will not be the schools, and this largely moves towards a neighborhood policing model, the liaison positions will still count as "police" in the Worcester Public Schools budget as a city contribution. The--I guess?--positive point here is that this removal doesn't put us any closer to plunging below required net school spending than we already were (remember, we're only $14K over this year, which isn't much of a margin for a budget of any size), but it does mean that, yes, we're still going to be spending $700K+ on police in the schools budget, which I know was something many advocates were hoping was going to be over.
     (This is reminding me that we probably are overdue for an explainer on Net School Spending around here, again. I went on at some length about this during the meeting, because I am beyond exhausted--it's been three city administrations now--of being lectured to about what the schools need to find money for, and how the schools need to be grateful for capital spending, in city where the municipality barely meets the legal requirement for operating costs, in a state where the average is spending a third more than required. In any case...)
     The joint MOU between the police department and the school department we asked to come back to us, in part because this will involve the devotion of resources (which is under our purview). The initial one is due the end of January (I hear some indications that some language already exists) for the next six months, for reconsideration this summer for an update.
     There were four focus groups. In total, those involved 12 students and 4 parents. While those weren't the only ones involved, it's...less than compelling. And, as I noted, having a school safety plan created by the city manager's office left us light on details on the "inside the school building side," which...would seem to be key? Thus this didn't appear to have a lot of voices of those inside our buildings every day.
     I should note that SROs are part of the survey that the student reps are collecting responses on, so that will be useful to have back--in January!--as well.
  
  
• Last night our student reps--Adalise Rivera Lugo of UPCS, in addition to our ex officio Stacia Zoghbi of Tech--updated us on their student survey efforts (Students, if you haven't: take the survey! Check your emails!), their work on a social media policy for the student advisory council, and the Zen Den at Worcester Tech, which is something they'd like to see expanded to more schools.
  
  
• The report out from Finance and Operations--agenda here, remember this includes transportation updates!--sent me down a line of questioning that I want to explain a bit here.
    The first thing to note is that our grants department is currently under the Deputy Superintendent, which is a change from prior administrations. Much of the current committee flagged that as of concern during our budget deliberation, particularly due to the influx of ESSER spending coming to the district, but it remains as it is.
    The ARP special education grant for $1.7M that came before the Committee at the end of October had 18 positions in it. I asked that we send it to subcommittee because it wasn't clear to me how we were going to fund what, from what one could discern from the grant backup, were new positions, once the grant, which would fund then for 18 months, ran out.
     Once it got to subcommittee, it became clear that these were not, mostly, new positions. When we received the September update on the budget, the IDEA grant (the usual one) came back $58K more than was budgeted. All to the good.
     However, between then and the end of October, the funding in IDEA that we as a district can spend fell by $313K, partly due to the money we're required to set aside for private schools, and partly due to a DESE program (that I'd never heard of before) called 3M, which is a required set-aside for turnaround work.
     Thus our federal IDEA grant, which funds the salaries for 192 people in the FY22 budget, was $313K short. 
    The School Committee didn't receive an update on this in the first quarterly report--grants, remember, aren't part of the finance office--so we had no idea that we suddenly had no funding for the salaries for quite a number of employees.
    Those, it turned out--and this we only gathered in subcommittee--is most of what was being carried by this ARP IDEA grant, with the intent once the grant runs out being to pick up the positions in the increased funding through SOA (which I am beginning to think that we are overcommitting, but one thing at a time).
    In any case, I'm not sure that was clear in my line of questions last night, but it's worrying to me to have a drop in revenue that funds positions that we don't know about and have to kind of stumble across.
  
  
• Both ESSER II and III were approved, but remember, there's a lot of scope in there for application (and grants can be amended), so you should please attend our public hearing on ESSER on Monday at 7; that's the agenda with the Zoom link, so please share! 
  
  
• I asked for a report on our access to the Massachusetts Immunization Information System, which is a statewide datebase for, yes, immunizations. I know other districts have been using this access to have up-to-date information on how many of their students are vaccinated; we do have this access, so we're getting a report on how that works and, moving forward, should be able to have those percentages as part of our COVID updates.
  
  
• Mrs. Clancey requested an update on open teaching positions and what is being done to fill them. I hope we get this back soon.
  
  
• We had a boatload of items come back as requests to be filed (that starts on page 59 of the agenda). I did ask to pull a few back out, including the request to put the homeschooling form on the website; we now have the PowerPoint about homeschooling, but not the actual form, and I asked that this be fixed before the end of the calendar year. 
  We also aren't following our own fundraising policy (GBEBD), which requires that all such efforts be approved by principals, first to keep the school moving the same direction, but also, because sometimes (believe it or not!), we can actually pay for things. Also, if the principals don't know, we never hear about it, and we can't fix it. With over 200 projects currently up on Donors Choose from WPS, I'm going to bet that most of them didn't follow this process.
  (And yes, I know this is a pain, teachers. But I also want us to actually fix the problem.)
  The other thing, incidentally, is we're not following is the part that doesn't allow for solicitation among those to whom someone is directly answerable; there should not be solicitation coming from any administrative office, thus, nor should solicitation go from teachers to families in a specific fashion. That section reads: 
  Employees shall not use a crowdfunding source, or set up their appeal in such a way, that they are asking for donations directly from people over whom the employee making the request has authority, or with whom the public employee is having official dealings (such as parents of student's in a teacher's classroom - the solicitation can say "Classroom X needs tissues and crayons," but it shouldn't be directed to parents who have shared email addresses with the teacher for purposes of communicating about their student).
  
  
• We did also honor our outgoing members, and I won't try to summarize that. I do want to note that Mayor Petty had each of the outgoing members chair part of the meeting, which was a very nice gesture. 

Important note: the city inauguration is on January 3 at 5:30 at Mechanics Hall, and the public is MOST welcome!

on WPS capital spending

 The Worcester School Committee just received the following email:

At the School Committee Meeting that was held on Thursday, February 27, 2021, Miss Biancheria made the following motion:

      Request that the Administration provide, in a Friday letter, any updates on the Roosevelt School traffic problems once contracts are signed.

Response from the Administration.

The Worcester Public Schools Five-Year Capital Budget allocated $1 million for the Roosevelt School traffic reconfiguration project from the FY22 allocation (see page 180 of the budget book). However, with the city’s recent purchase of several Becker College properties,  the WPS is expected to fund the purchase of the Weller Academic Building through a reduction of its capital budget allocation.      Since the acquisition of Becker College properties was not included in the district’s five-year capital plan, the district must defer $3.5 million of projects listed on the five-year plan to a later date.   The WPS Administration is working with the City of Worcester Administration to shift project funding and develop a longer-term collaborative capital funding strategy.  The district will evaluate the Roosevelt School parking lot funding plan as part of these adjustments. 

The entirety of the Worcester Public Schools' capital budget is $3.5M each year, as follows from page 192 of our budget: 

Effectively then, the capital budget of the Worcester Public Schools is being zeroed out for an entire year to purchase buildings on which the Worcester School Committee was not consulted and had no say in.

What will be postponed? Start with page 188. The memo says that it is the five year plan, so it won't necessarily be this year's plans. 

What happened last night at Worcester School Committee (11/18/21)

So what happened at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting? 

For those for whom the sound didn't work until a bit of a way in, Roger Nugent, president of the EAW, spoke first requesting that we amend an earlier authorization for sick bank use for an employee (extending it beyond days donated by one school to the larger employee pool, as some donations came from outside the school), and shared a petition from some members on "choice" around vaccinations.

We had TWO student reps at the meeting last night: Stacia Zoghbi (who's our ex officio, as she was elected by the other student reps to be our official non-voting member) and Julianna Manxhari; Stacia goes to Tech and Julianna to Doherty. They sent out a survey to their peers across the district--students, PLEASE TAKE IT!!--and plan to share the results of that with us at one of our next meetings. They've also asked for a seat on the superintendent's search committee (and it sounds to me as if they're going to get it). 

The report of the superintendent was from Dr. Marco Andrade (whom I mentally refer to as "the data person") with a report that was framed from the perspective on the Office on Civil Rights (a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Education) around disparities in student data on social-emotional data, achievement information, absentee and discipline data, and post-graduate education and persistence. The report is here, starting on page 28. We have significant gaps, as was noted, and this is being referred to School and Student Performance for further discussion, because (as I said at the meeting) the data is only the start; the question is what we're going to do with it.

Reporting out were both Finance and Operations and Teaching, Learning, and Student Support standing committees. F&O had the transportation report, so we approved the new position descriptions (as budgeted for in the report, and as approved as part of the plan) for that department at the same time. And yes, we're hiring!
We also had the first quarter report, and one part concerned me: 

A $400K transfer from teachers to administration would raise an eyebrow, in any case, but it have it come in for the first quarter report--when we just passed the budget in June--and to have it explained as the conversation of five EL teachers to four EL administrators, particularly when we had just received a report from that department a few months back with no mention of this is simply bad process. 
I voted for the transfer, in part because it became clear that the administration had actually hired people ahead of the transfer, which is also bad process. 

TLSS had the vocational admissions policy, and Ms. McCullough noted that the deliberation also included discussion of the recruitment of more representative applicants (as the demographics of Tech become non-representative by who applies even with the new policy), as well as some discussion of the question of interest, which will be taken up during tours. The standing committee's report was passed, which gives provisional approval. Final approval will follow a public hearing next month.
Note that later in the meeting, we accepted a grant for $130K that is directed at this question of student recruitment to Tech.

We received back a report on an item I'd filed that had been bounced back and forth several times as incomplete regarding contracts that are directly with the superintendent. I'd heard concerns months ago that contracts weren't being completed, and so filed the item back in August. Eventually, the principal contracts largely were fulfilled, but there have been a number of outstanding administration contracts that were still not completed. I'll share here what we got last night: 

Beyond the contracts still not renewed, there are two things here that concerned me. The first is this group of people marked "N/A" who, I was told, simply do not have contracts. There isn't parity across administration in who this is, though, and I'm concerned that this not being based on something solid could open us up to discrimination allegations.
The second thing, from the far right column, is several contracts that now expire in 2026; that is, some people have recently been given five year contracts. This is itself unusual--five years for public contracts is covered for other circumstances by laws--but contracts given for five years by a superintendent who herself is leaving in seven months is particularly attention grabbing, as was my subsequent understanding that questions have been raised about extending contracts that are not yet expired.
As Mayor Petty noted, there is case law around the ability of executive successor, backed by the public committee, being able to cancel extensions in such circumstances, and he told Superintendent Binienda last night that he expected any updates not already included above to come before the School Committee.

We received back an updated report from Mrs. Clancey's motion asking for information on the transfers; this was the additional elementary teachers and the additional adjustment counselors. She asked for information to be shared with the school committee about what the adjustment counselors are finding in their discussions. 
I was concerned to learn that the elementary teachers, who we'd specifically transferred to lower class size, largely have not been assigned to do so; only three are classroom teachers. 

An additional position for the Chief Diversity Officer passed (6-1; I was the 'no' vote, as I think this office continues to be poorly defined, and I think that needs to be fixed first.)

We accepted at $12,500 grant from Mass Insight for AP teacher training.

The audits are coming to F&O! (That's all we know so far. They do every year.)

Ms. McCullough filed an item looking into playground inspection and repair, so expect to see that coming.

She also asked for a reassessment of the need for crossing guards at secondary schools.

We also had clarified, on her motion, that volunteers MAY be in schools, so long as they have provided either proof of up to date vaccination or recent negative COVID test (just like employees).

And she asked about virtual tutoring. Earlier in the meeting, Miss Biancheria questioned administration about part-time tutors who are retirees possibly being hired.

I filed an item specifically on bus 38, as I haven't gotten any response to my emails to the superintendent (who has directed that communication with Durham is hers) regarding it.

We're also going to recognize all the people who don't get recognized when you build a new school building for opening South (or at least we're going to try!).

And we're going to thank the National Guard, AA Transportation, plus WPS Transportation (per the superintendent's request) and the Lieutenant Governor (per the Mayor's request) for their work on transportation in October. Other amendments were not accepted.

And then a report I hope comes back soon: 

Request administration report urgently via school level staff on student disregulation, how it is manifesting in our schools, how staff is managing and coping with such disregulation, and what resources and policy changes from this Committee are necessary to better support students, families, and staff.

We next meet on the Monday the 22nd with the superintendent search firm! 5:30! 

The rest of Tuesday's agenda

 The report of Thursday's Ad-Hoc search meeting (which you can watch a video of here) is being reported out to the full Committee tomorrow (Tuesday) at 5 pm at a special meeting of the Worcester School Committee, so we can keep moving on the search.

This isn't a regular business meeting of the Worcester School Committee, which is why it's odd that we've somehow ended up with an agenda that has a lot of other things on it; the mayor, for example, is jamming this meeting in before the regular meeting of the Worcester City Council.

I have many thoughts on much of this, which I will share, of course, during the deliberation tomorrow.

On the agenda: 

• A response to the request to provide an update on new hires from the re-allocated funds during budget hearings. That response reads, in its entirety, as follows:
  As part of the FY22 Budget, the School Committee reallocated 13 teacher positions for early literacy specialists / interventionists to class size reduction teachers.

These teachers have been assigned to the following schools:
1. Belmont Street
2. Canterbury Street School
3. Chandler Magnet
4. City View*
5. Clark Street
6. Columbus Park
7. Grafton Street
8. Goddard*
9. Lincoln Street
10.Quinsigamond
11.Rice Square
12.Vernon Hill*
13.Woodland Academy
*Classroom teacher.
The teachers are addressing significant gaps, working with the assigned teacher
and in some cases covering missing staff.

• A new request to pass the "Job Description for Recruitment and Cultivation Director" which the Committee has said it will only consider once the above item is responded to in full.
  
  
• A 16-page contract masquerading as a "donation," which is a subscription service for school sports broadcast (starts on page 13 of the backup, if you're interested).
  
  
• A $1.7M ARP one year special education grant which would add 20 positions.
  
  
• A $155K ARP one year early ed grant that would add two positions. 

Again,  I am abiding by our ethical obligation to keep deliberation for the meeting itself. However, take a look. 

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

June Board of Ed: budget!

 Bell: budget is in conference committee
pretty much know what it looks like from a state education aid perspective runs through the numbers
$40M for enrollment return costs: student enrollment increasing in a district could seek reimbursement
House $15M COVID-related summer remediation
Senate $6M social emotional behavioral health needs
(thus needs resolution in conference committee)
state aid for rural school districts: rural state aid account (either 3 or 4 M depending on conference)
continuing commitment to adult learners

federal side: outside of usual federal funding streams
COVID relief funding: ESSER
$2.9B in three programs: spend through 9/30/22, 9/30/23, 9/30/24 (I,II,III respectively)
applications: all have applied for I, 43% of districts have applied II, 2 have applied for III
process of investing and using this "generational funding"

West: ARRA districts faced a fiscal cliff
we're in a period where we expect increments of increased funding in the coming years? is there then a smoother transition?
it depends on if your district is one that gets those increased funds
Have we done any modeling on what districts can anticipate?
can we provide guidance for districts to avoid that adjustment
Bell: guidance issued was to the question of districts being thoughtful on use that it does sunset
the SOA on aid you can anticipate
"actual financial modeling...we're available to assist"
"can't actually get out in front of what the Legislature will appropriate"
not to say that districts can't model; "districts that are thinking about it are already down that road"
"certainly happy to be a partner if districts run their own models"
want to be respectful of appropriators 

Coming later this week on here--I promise

 ...will be a not-at-all-live blog of the second round of Worcester School Committee deliberations.

But this kind of breaks my heart: 

I just want to note here that the Worcester School Committee passed a $466M budget Thursday, about which our local daily has written not a word. https://t.co/MFEnrJKVwC

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) June 20, 2021

Even setting aside the slavish devotion of much of our local media to the Woo Sox, it's really a giant miss for there to be literally no coverage of the budget deliberation of a $466M budget.

And it wasn't passed without real deliberation. Not having this covered means that there are many who will not know some substantive differences between the committee and administration and among the committee itself.

Sure, I'll blog it--I started this blog as a response to lack of coverage, in any case--but that's not enough, not the least of which is because I am myself one of the participants in the deliberation.  

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday at 9

 ...and it's a bit of a regulation revision-fest. Much of that is pandemic-related. The agenda is here.

There is the usual update from the Commissioner after public comment and opening remarks from the Chair, the Secretary, and possibly the Commissioner himself.

The big item on the agenda--and what is already getting press--is the long-awaited update to the vocational school regulations. You can read the strike-through version of the regulations here; the summarized public comment and response to them is here. 
If you're interested in this, I recommend reading the link (in "long-awaited update") above, as it spells out first the changes that already had been proposed in April, as well as the changes made as a result of public comment, which largely clarify language (I'd say) rather than substantively change the proposal. Effectively, what the Department is working to have is regional vocational schools that are reflections of their sending districts and that have admissions processes that at least aim not to drop students in ways that are inequitable. (As a Worcester side note, Superintendent Binienda noted last night that she'd heard from the Assistant Commissioner about these changes; while Tech is not subject to these regs, as it is a district-run vocational, it would be...wise for us to take notice. Turns out I was utterly wrong on that last; they do apply, and moreover, the Committee will have to attest that whatever local changes are made will not/no longer have this disparate impact; aka, you gotta make changes that mean you end up with a student body that looks like your whole student body.)
Note that those are up for vote.

There is an update (postponed from previous) on the Kaleidoscope Collective (remember that?).

There is also an update on innovative science assessments (which I have to confess that I didn't realize was a thing they were working on?):

In early 2020, we applied and received approval from the U.S. Department of Education for Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA), with a proposal to create a new assessment for Science and Technology/Engineering (STE). The innovative assessment will feature more in-depth, computer-based performance tasks in which students engage actively with simulations of authentic scientific phenomena by applying science knowledge and practices. Our initial work is focused on the tests for grades 5 and 8, and we plan to evaluate similar approaches for high school science tests in future years.

There is a change in the accountability and charter school regulations also up for vote. These are the two that were sent out for public comment in April; you might remember this is more clean-up on this being a weird year and the state not using the MCAS things this year: the first is the Department not creating accountability statuses this year; the second is the state using the current lowest 10% list, rather than re-calculating it with pandemic MCAS scores.

There is also a change proposed and going out for public comment (assuming they vote for that) on the competency determination. You might remember that they set an interim standard for passing for high school when we switched tests; that interim standard ends with the class of 2023 (rising juniors). Noting the gaps in testing that have happened recently, this would extend that interim standard for another two years. 
Noe that this is being sent out for public comment. 

There is a budget update (no backup).

There's also the evaluation of the Commissioner (and no, that doesn't have backup as yet, so we'll all just wait to see what they say).

There's the annual delegation of authority to the Commissioner, as the Board doesn't meet over the summer.

There are some information items, but those are the action items. 
Tuesday at 9 am! 

FY22 Worcester School Committee budget deliberation: round 1

 writing these up later for both my and your use

The budget is online here. The schedule of accounts we're using is here. My memo to my colleagues is here.

A note on Worcester and net school spending

This is far enough down in my Tuesday live-blog that it may well be missed, so I am giving it its own post:

As part of the discussion on police in the schools, Councilor King asked about the municipal contribution on policing; that, of course, is represented on our favorite, the municipal contribution calculation:

Noting that the amount being credited against the school contribution appears not to have changed for this coming year, Councilor King asked how this could be, if in fact the police were being removed from the buildings. 
City CFO Tim McGourthy said that this wasn't the number, noting that actual school spending gets reported at the end of the year. WPS CFO Brian Allen agreed that this was "a placeholder."

The city CFO, though, said two other things worth noting: 

1. The drop in this municipal contribution will drop the city's net school spending. Quick math says that if it's actually cut in half, we'll drop below net school spending, something which would not be an issue if we weren't running this so close to the line. Rarely are districts having this discussion anymore. 
   
   
2. McGourthy said that some federal funds can count. That answers the question on if the city has been counting on the allowance in the Governor and Senate versions of the budget, providing for up to 75% of a district's ESSER II spending to count towards the increase in local contribution. Three-quarters of Worcester's ESSER II award of $34.8M obviously more than covers the $3.7M increase required of the city for the local contribution, so I'd been wondering if they planned to actually increase local spending. It appears they are, but will claim?--I'm unclear on how this is going to work; is the state simply going to state that 3/4 of a district's ESSER II award is local contribution? Because that's ridiculous--to be over due to ESSER funds.
   ...which is just useless for anything other than the state being able to wave its hands and declare district contributions fulfilled. I mean, really. 

Anyway, to watch for this year. 

What did you propose at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting?

 As we opened budget deliberations last night, I shared the following with my colleagues on the Committee: 

June 3, 2021

FY22 WPS budget transfers and additions of Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief funds

What you need to follow today's WPS FY22 deliberation

 The Worcester School Committee has our regular meeting today BUT first we start with budget! The proposed FY22 Worcester Public Schools FY22 budget is found online here.

To follow that discussion, you'll need the proposed sequence of accounts, which is linked there, but also here: 

That's just the order it is proposed we discuss things in. Note that the grant programs includes the federal ESSER funding, and that's at the end (not today).