two* Massachusetts school budget charts you might find interesting

 I took some time this past week to update some slides from work, and there are two that I thought might be of general interest.

As you may or may not know, the state school funding system is based on an underlying split of 51% of the foundation budget coming from the local communities and 49% coming from the state. Now, that's foundation budget level state aid and  required local spending, so both of those aren't what actually happens. It continues to be the local part that's really different, though. Here's what FY25 (which the state recently released actual spending data on) was: 

Green is chapter 70; blue is local spending

Now, please keep in mind that this is reported net school spending--it doesn't include grants, and it also doesn't include things like transportation (which regional districts have heavily reimbursed). It is however most of what is spend on schools in Massachusetts, and chapter 70 is 38.5% of the above total.

Now some of that above state aid is, as I've been noting, hold harmless aid. Hold harmless aid is, of course, aid that ensures a district doesn't get less aid than the year before. Because the state also ensures districts get an increase in aid each year, this can accumulate, such that the amount of state aid a district is receiving is increasingly far removed from the needs of the district and the ability to contribute of the municipality.

As I was putting together my annual comparison of two districts with very similar foundation budgets that have very different levels of need and very different abilities to contribute this year: 

Dartmouth, which has much less need in its district, and much strongly ability to contribute than Southbridge, as seen above...

...is, due to minimum per pupil increases adding up over time, now required by the state to spend more than Southbridge through state-supplied funding. In other words, the state gets both Dartmouth and Southbridge schools to foundation, and then adds funding to Dartmouth's state aid, lest Dartmouth's aid be less than before. 

As always, I post this not to pick on Dartmouth, or indeed anyone; we could easily do this with a large number of districts across the state. I am, however, going to continue to note that this isn't equity

*yes, there are three charts, but it's the first and the third I thought you'd find of interest

point five, Worcester

 When I posted about the Worcester School Committee taking up the FY27 budget projections for the first time, we didn't yet have the FY25 net school spending compliance report. The summary file of that is now available, and now we can see what impact the $3.8M the City Council transferred from free cash, as highlighted in yellow in Ms. Consalvo's presentation here: 

Note that part of the reason that the city had as much ground to make up as it did is that in FY25, the city underfunded the schools by $1.9M (99.6% of required). That gets carried over into the next year.

That puts Worcester at a projected point five percent over required net school spending for the current fiscal year (FY26). 

Statewide average (projected) for FY26 is 26.3% over required

Possible flag on four federal grants for this coming school year

The interaction between state and federal budgets is a bit tricky: we're hearing, now, about a federal budget which, when it comes to things like federal grants to school districts, would fund the school year after this coming one, starting in August or September of 2026 (which will be local and state fiscal year '27). The federal grants for this coming school year, the one that starts in August or September of 2025, already were passed by Congress, and, for the most part, the amounts to be allocated have already been shared with states (for what locally and at the state level is fiscal year '26).
Thus we've felt a bit safer for this coming year, as we've largely already had the numbers of what has been allocated (even as, remember, grant funding is reimbursements, so we never really have the money). 

Mark Lieberman, who writes on school finance for EdWeek, today flags four grants for which that is not the case as of yet: 

The growing anxiety over disrupted federal education funding centers on four programs worth a combined $5 billion: Title I-C for migrant education, Title II for professional development, Title III for English learners, and Title IV-B for before- and after-school programs.

The White House budget proposal published last month calls for eliminating all four programs beginning in the 2026-27 school year. But education officials nationwide worry that the administration could proceed with those cuts for the 2025-26 school year, before Congress has weighed in.

For all four programs, states haven’t received routine funding allocation estimates from the federal government that typically arrive between March and May—nor any confirmation from federal officials that the funds are still forthcoming.

Mark relates the national breakdown on how much is involved: 

• Migrant education: $376M (Title I-C)
• Professional development for teachers: $2.2B (Title II)
• Services for English learners: $890M (Title III)
• Before/afterschool programs: $1.3B (Title IV-B)

This delay has concerned the superintendents such that AASA came out with a statement today, which reads in part: 

The delayed FY25 disbursements for Title I, Part C; Title II, Part A; Title III; and Title IV-B totals $4.786 billion—resources essential for the upcoming school year, which begins in just a few weeks in many communities. Without these vital investments, schools will be faced with significant budget shortfalls, leading to reductions in service—and, in some cases, staff layoffs.

We call on the USED and OMB to release the funding as appropriated by Congress without further delay. The law is clear, the appropriations are in place, and the stakes are too high to allow political brinksmanship to interfere with the critically important operations of our nation’s public schools. We strongly urge USED and OMB to honor their legal obligations under authorizing statutes and execute the funding decisions made by Congress.

Mark also relates this concerning exchange from a Senate hearing yesterday:

 During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., asked Russell Vought, the director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, whether the administration intends to hold back K-12 education funding due to states next week and instead propose a “rescissions package,” asking Congress for permission to cancel the previously appropriated funds.

Vought did not rule out that possibility. He replied, in effect, that the administration hasn’t decided.

“We are considering multi-year funding. It’s underway with a programmatic review. But again, it is multi-year funding, and no decision has been made with regard to whether they will be a part of any particular rescissions package,” Vought said.

 As you may have read, Vought rejects the constitutional framework of three co-equal branches of the federal government which check and balance each other. 

I wish I had some sort of conclusion here. We don't know. Given how these have gone so far, if the funding didn't come through, presumably states would file suit, and so far, those have largely gone in favor of the states suing. 
But that doesn't meet payroll or pay for programs in the meantime. 

On the Senate's Ways and Means budget

In the Senate Ways and Means budget released Tuesday, most of the education lines are parallel to the House budget, with these exceptions: 

The circuit breaker is still down from the Governor, so the open question here is what they're doing with the supplemental, which does have supplemental circuit breaker funding in it.
Related to this line, incidentally, is that there is word out there that the Legislature doesn't plan to take action on the supplemental budget until taking action on the FY26 budget, despite some of the funding in the supplemental budget for circuit breaker being for FY25. That's WAY too late. If the intent is for it to be for FY25, it needs to get to districts this fiscal year, which it will not if they wait until conference committee.

The Senate puts rural schools back to $16M.


The charter school reimbursement is down $14M from the House Ways and Means budget, with no clear reason as to why*. I've taken a look at some of the bigger districts on the updated preliminary cherry sheets and district by district loss in charter school reimbursement compared to the House Ways and Means budget:

•  $2M Worcester
• $3.5M Springfield
• $1.75M Lowell
• $500K New Bedford
• $1.5M Lawrence
• $1M Fall River
• $1.5M Brockton
• $389K Barnstable
• $478K Chelsea
• $657K Everett
  
  

UPDATE: Having taken a look at the updated DESE numbers, the Senate just doesn't fully fund charter reimbursement. The account should be $215,792,970; it's $183,828,858. It's funded at 85.2% of what it should be.

I hear a lot of people talk about "deals" and "commitment" this time of year. This is not either.

___________________
*Boston's charter reimbursement is up by about $4M, but tuition is also up by $10M, which I assume is the approvals from the Board of Ed meeting earlier this spring coming through.

I am doomed to have the same discussion over and over forever

 The FY24 net school spending report was released yesterday.

if you click this, it will get bigger

Here’s a zoom in of the current year:

In words, that's "you didn't meet required spending last year by $5,548,031; you are required to make up for it this year, and you are not budgeted to do so."

No sugarplums

 with apologies, of course, to Clement C. Moore.

(not that kind of spin)

'Twas the Friday before Christmas
And all through the city
Not creature examined
A press release so pretty.

"Ten million!" it said
On every channel,
"For a difficult budget
we must work to handle!"

"More children," it said
"They must be supported,
"And our new Burncoat High
"we're funding!" it purported.

(Not mentioned as yet?
The head-scratching omission
From MSBA's list:
Burncoat Middle's addition?)

While free cash to schools
Is better than none
And planning for schools
Is better when done

The municipal spin
On this was nearly transcension
And lest we be left
Under misapprehension:

Our city, like all
throughout our fair state,
Is required 
To pull its fair weight.

This 'foundation budget'
Most far exceed.
Worcester, alas, 
Does not follow this lead.

Cutting so close
Puts us in constant peril,
And this year, indeed,
The shave was too narrow.

Yet to be sure the students'
Highest needs were met
Buses are sent
To a greater extent.

Out-of-district tuition
May count; buses don't.
And so the dollars moved
Where the press release won't.

It may not make headlines
As nicely as that,
But being unclear
The reasons fall flat.

When the public is not given
The facts of the case
We cannot make good decisions
And we're aren't in our place

Of being good watchdogs
And being prepared
For FY26
And all that entails.

Let me give here a nod
'Fore I close out this verse:
Worry less about spin
More about what you disburse.

And about those federal grants

Speaking of information Worcester is sharing neatly, if you look at the FY25 first quarter report, the federal grants have come through, and so there is this:

That, plus the accompanying narrative of course, gives some idea of what Worcester (second largest district in Massachusetts, about 25,000 students) gets from the federal government, though do remember it does not include school nutrition--free lunch is entirely federally funded in Worcester and like districts!-- which is another $17M for FY25.

So, figure $44M for Worcester, now that we're back to an average year.

And Worcester folks? Do take a look at that first quarter report while you're over there. My eyebrows went up. That's...an uncommon report. 

FY26 starts now. Inflation is estimated at 2.06%

The handful of us that peek ahead have been checking with some dread the implicit price deflator for state and local services, the U.S. Department of Commerce measurement whose rate of change determines the inflation rate for the foundation budget.

As Mr. Allen has provided a nice ('though not happy!) chart for the WPS subcommittee this week, let's use what he shares, as it is the crucial part of what we need to speak about for FY26 statewide: 

 

As goes Worcester, so goes the state in terms of the difference that this provides, again, between the expected increases in actual costs and the increases in the foundation budget. 

Those who are asking how this is still an issue with the Student Opportunity Act, by the way, are (intentionally?) ignoring the actual math. We're not getting the benefit of SOA if we continue to pretend this is a real inflationary increase. We're just using SOA increases, in the districts receiving them, the cover the annual increases of costs to school districts. This is not what was envisioned by the Foundation Budget Review Commission. 

The final paragraph makes the point from Worcester's perspective that was the central advocacy position of MASS, MASC, MTA, and AFT-MA last budget: the two years of capped inflation are skipped aid that isn't going to districts. As MassBudget calculated last year, most districts in Massachusetts would benefit from this skipped inflation being recognized, and in actual aid increases, not in per pupil minimums that too often become the talking point in budget season.

Advocacy starts now. 

But what did Fair Share get us?

ahem...

I hope by now you've seen that the Fair Share amendment, which taxes at 4% on every dollar over a person's first $1M in income, has far exceeded expectations. As noted back in May: 

Massachusetts has collected about $1.8 billion from a voter-approved surtax on the state’s highest earners through the first nine months of the fiscal year, the Department of Revenue said Monday in a quarterly report.

That’s more than $800 million more than what the Legislature and Gov. Maura Healey planned to spend in surtax revenue for all of fiscal year 2024, raising the possibility of a sizable pot that will land in an Education and Transportation Reserve Fund and the Education and Transportation Innovation and Capital Fund, both surtax specific accounts, once the books close.

Remember, unless you've made a million plus at least a dollar in income? You are not paying this. And if you made a million plus a dollar, you're only taxed the extra 4% on that one additional dollar.

I've seen some confusion about this, so I thought I'd clear up a few things. 

First, the above money doesn't get spent until next year; this is a reserve fund, so the funding goes in and sits until the total is determined by the state comptroller in December. It's pretty clear, though, that the state's been conservative with projections, and this is one where we do really want to spend the money that's coming.

Second, this is funding--like most in the state--that's allocated by vote of the Legislature, signed by the Governor. There isn't some sort of formula where everyone gets some of this. I've heard districts ask how they can apply, or if it's being allocated evenly...that isn't how this works at all. The Legislature decides on what, within transportation and education, they want to spend the money on, and that's where it goes.

Funding was allocated in this year's budget from last year's Fair Share collection. Again, there is a very good chance that you are not personally paying for this--these efforts are not increasing your taxes!--but we as state residents are benefiting!

• universal free lunch - a program much in the news, due to Minnesota similarly funding meals for all students, the reimbursement to districts of the federal reimbursement rate for non-federally reimbursed meals (the wonkish explanation!), this $170M is from Fair Share funding. 
  Yes, we literally have our millionaires making sure all kids eat!
  Remember, the FY24 number is a compromise and is expected to still not be enough to fully reimburse the expense to districts
• $74/pupil increase in minimum aid in chapter 70. I've ongoingly argued that this is not a fair, equitable, way to get aid to districts, and yet...here we are. $37M here for K-12 districts.
• free community college is funded from the Fair Share amendment (there's several lines of public higher ed funding, in fact)
• $110M to regional transit authorities-- aka, local bus systems
• $60M for MBTA physical infrastructure
• $20M for a low income reduced fare program for the MBTA
• $7.5M for ferry services
• $36M for safety work at the MBTA
• $45M for municipal roadwork
• $10M for a skilled workforce pipeline for the MBTA (those bus and train drivers don't grow on trees!)
• $175M for child care grants (operations)
• $15M to reduce the waitlist at early childcare and education for teen parents and homeless families
• $5M for preschool expansion
• $65M for increased salaries and benefits for early education and care
• $18M for reducing the early childcare waitlist
• expanding early college, technical, and innovation pathways at $2.5M 
• the Literacy Launch, funding for both curriculum and professional development, which they compromised at $20M for
• Green Energy infrastructure grants to schools for $10M
• developing a framework for mental and behavioral health funded at $5M

This is all really good stuff! We should be proud that we fought for this money! 
I wish more people were more clear on where it is going. Please spread the word!

A round-up on WPS things

 So much to post, so little time. Some WPS notes in the meantime:

• At tonight's Worcester School Committee meeting, the School Committee conducts Dr. Monárrez's annual evaluation. The presentation is here. As I noted last month, there is a SINGLE evaluation of a superintendent, not, in Worcester's case, nine. The evaluation as presented overall evaluates her work as proficient, which, as the DESE standards remind us, is a "rigorous expected level of performance." This is an official action of the School Committee and will be voted. 
  
  
• The agenda tonight also has a proposed meeting schedule (which I suspect will need to be amended) and a proposed calendar of agenda reports.
  
  
• Oddly, still no update on the bottom line of the budget. 
  
  
• With the first day of school for students grades 1-12 on August 26 (preK and K on the 29), there's a back to school letter shared on the district website. This includes a list of new principal and coordinator assignments, which I'll include below. I assume these went through a community committee screening, 'though it's odd that it never had any public side (aka: not the internal school community) outreach for those. 
  
  
• Note that the WPS Transportation system not only had routes available for families LAST WEEK--it's never in my memory been that early!--they're also starting the year FULLY STAFFED with drivers. There's going to be 101 bus routes this year in Worcester. And don't miss WPS mechanic Jim Hicks on WBUR this morning! 
  
  
• You've probably caught some of the Doherty coverage; yes, the new building is done and will open with the rest of the district. The T&G also had a piece on late WPS superintendent Leo T. Doherty, after whom the building is named. We can't say "on budget" on this due to the pandemic, but remember that the inflationary increase was covered by the state. 
  
  
• And yes, Burncoat is still going next; yes, that's actually official; and if you want to bug someone about it, ask when the building committee is going to be announced. There are districts that were accepted at the same time that are WAY ahead of us on timeline (we can actually go quicker than the deadlines!). 

__________________________________________

New assignments: 

Challenge and Reach Academy: Scott Moriarty

Chandler Elementary: Margaret Murphy

Claremont Academy: Christopher LaBreck

Clark Street Elementary: Christopher Dodge

Gerald Creamer Center: Angela Plant

Jacob Hiatt Magnet Elementary: Amanda Martinez (acting)

Lincoln Street Elementary: Karen Allen

New Citizens Center Secondary: Dr. Erin Goldstein

Rice Square Elementary: Fjodor Dukaj

Thorndyke Road Elementary: Susan Donahue

Transition Program: Dr. Brenda Diggs

Vernon Hill Elementary: Tammy Boyle

MA Literacy bill is dead for this session

 And with the official end of formal session of the Legislature, it appears that the well-intended (I think?) but way out of the Legislature's lane literacy bill which would have mandated that districts pull curricula from a DESE-approved list is dead. 
The Boston Globe, who of course had turned this into a crusade this year, have coverage here. The award for 'measured quote which makes the point nicely' goes to Co-Executive Director of MASS Mary Bourque: 

Mary Bourque, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, said that the bill was a “top-down” approach, leaving little room for teachers — the education experts — to make the calls for their students.

“But what we feel about the Literacy Launch is it’s more of a partnership with districts,” Bourque said. “Districts that are ready to engage in this and recognize they need help with this work are able to get the funding to get it off the ground.”

...with the 'award for random person quoted' going to the tutor in the middle of the piece. 

The Legislature passed a compromise $20M for funding literacy materials and professional development in the FY25 conference committee budget, in what the Governor is calling "Literacy Launch." Collaboration...now there's an idea.

I live in hope that we won't have to fight this again this coming legislative cycle.

The Governor's vetoes are going to stand

Per Kelly Garrity reporting from the State House this morning, while the House did override them, the Senate isn't going to take them up: 

The Senate will NOT be taking up the House’s overrides of Gov. Maura Healey’s vetoes to the Legislature’s FY25 budget.

Senate Ways & Means chief Michael Rodrigues warned that July revenues are expected to come in low, described the vetoes as fiscally prudent #mapoli

— Kelly Garrity (@kellygarrity3) August 1, 2024

That of course includes all the K-12 education vetoes I listed here.  

Recall, by the way, that Healey's vetoes did not cite revenue as the reason. 

Massachusetts, we have a budget, mostly.

On Monday, Governor Maura Healey signed the FY25 conference committee budget. You can find the Governor's signing statement here along with the record of vetoes. 

As the most of the larger K-12 education accounts of the budget were signed as passed by the conference committee, which I covered here, I'm going to skip those and go right to the vetoes, of which there are quite a number that impact K-12 districts. 

(I know, right? You'd never know this from the coverage.)

Do note, though, that DESE has posted the final FY25 Chapter 70 and net school spending requirements. This means we can play "exactly how far back did making the minimum per pupil increase $104 set us from SOA gains?" which I'll get to in a future post.

The following is taken directly from the line item account veto document.

Odd one on WPS FY24 funding

I haven't posted on this because monetary decisions have to be done in public session, and so I expected, naturally, that we would see something in an agenda, and so I was waiting for that.

Fiscal year 2024 has ended; fiscal year 2025 has started.
There was no meeting called before the end of June after budget.
There is nothing on the July agenda.

There has been no vote by the Worcester School Committee to change the bottom line of the FY24 budget; there has been no vote of the Worcester School Committee to allocate funds received (it would be a prior year allocation, one assumes, now).

And yet at the City Council meeting on June 16, it seems, the City Manager said that additional funding would be forwarded to the Worcester Public Schools in response to a question from a councilor regarding minimum net school spending.
That then was raised as a question by Member Mailman at the June 20 meeting, with the response being at that point it hadn't been received yet, and that there would be a memo sent to the Committee.

It appears that was only done to the Committee², not publicly, and there still hasn't been any action taken by the Committee.

Last Thursday night, in response to a question by Member Biancheria (noting that the district has laid off literacy tutors, and questioning both why and how it is that the superintendent spoke of hiring an 'outside contractor' for literacy tutoring), the response was that this from "extra money from the city."

The response was that this was being done from the additional $1.8M received from the city--it's homeless transportation¹ reimbursement money, which the schools only get if the city actively moves it to schools--as the School Committee, it seems, received a memo about. 
And that funding went to fill FY24 holes, so it freed up federal grant funds, that then can be carried over into FY25, some of which can be used for literacy tutoring. 

Can the district do the above? Yes. 

And the Committee votes each year--and they did this year--to authorize the superintendent to move money among cost centers to close the fiscal year. 

It should be clear, though: this is not what this is.
This is new money for the district, which as not been recognized by the Committee in any way in their own action, which then is being used to provide for spending that the Committee also hasn't overseen. 

The City Auditor, it seems, has said that further action by the Committee isn't needed. The auditor, though, isn't who sets state law, regulation, or guidance for districts, all of which is unified that school committees in Massachusetts both set the bottom line spending and allocate funding by cost center. 

What's really, really odd to me about all of this is that the Worcester Public Schools are not--and I dare say I'm unusually well informed about this--a district where the budgetary authority of the Committee is usually in question. 
____________________________________________________________

¹As an utter side note, this means that, if this funding is being used to meet net school spending, it isn't being used for transportation, as that doesn't count. And that, again, is fine, and will no doubt show up in the end of the year close report.

²Let me head off the obvious here and say this: my concern isn't "I'm not on the Committee, so I don't know." My concern is that it's budgetary, so we are all supposed to know, regardless of our relationship with the district.

State conference committee budget on Governor Healey's desk

I'm working through updating my running spreadsheet on the FY25 budget, but the conference committee budget released last Thursday, passed Friday, and sitting on Governor Healey's desk has a few interesting wrinkles in the education accounts. 

• In the ongoing "this is actually a terrible way to add aid to schools, but it's easy to understand" race, you might remember that the Senate had upped the House's $104 minimum per pupil increase to $110. It's usually a good bet on those that the higher number will prevail, but in this case, it did not, as the conference committee budget adopted the $104 minimum per pupil. The additional $74 per pupil that this is--remember, the Student Opportunity Act sets this at $30 per pupil--is coming from Fair Share funds. 
  And this is a really terrible and inequitable way to add school funding which is completely undercutting the entire fight over the foundation budget and passage of the Student Opportunity Act, which I will continue to scream into the void over here.
  
  
• Free lunch for all kids is in there, but the conference committee budget took the smaller (in this case Senate) number of $170M for reimbursement on this one. We should be alarmed by this, as this doesn't fully fund the account. 
  Remember, this is now a state MANDATE; if the state doesn't fully fund it, districts are on the hook for the difference. There's been far too much dependence on supplemental budgets and "finding the money somewhere" on something as grounding as feeding kids for me on this one, so consider raising this with your legislators. You can be sure that most of them are running for re-election on it. 
  This, too, is funded from Fair Share, by the way.
  
  
• Interestingly, the conference committee passed a higher number than either chamber for circuit breaker, by close to a million dollars; the passed account is $493,177,484. This suggests to me that they're using as up-to-date reimbursement projections as possible, which is good. 
  
  
• Charter reimbursement was identical all the way through, at $198M, which is $33.7M. We've been assured that this fully funded; let's keep an eye on it.
  
  
• Similarly, homeless transportation reimbursement is funded at $26.6M, which has been consistent through the process. Given how costs on this have exploded across the state, I cannot believe that this comes close to reaching need (setting aside that frequently these reimbursements don't ever get to non-regional school districts, anyway, getting stuck in municipal general funds). 
  As Salem Superintendent Zrike said before the Board of Ed in June: these are OUR kids. We need to be sure they're covered, but we also can't pretend that is magically happening somehow without funding.
  
  
• Rural school aid came through at $16M, which is down from the Senate's $17.5M but up from the House's $7.5M. While I know this isn't the hoped-for $60M, I think it's worth noting that this is now an accepted, included account, that isn't having to be stuck in over the course of the process via amendment.
  

This is obviously not everything, but it's the ones I thought to flag. I will update this post when I have the spreadsheet updated, which I hope to do later today.

UPDATE: The account by account spreadsheet is still lacking a bit in commentary, but the numbers are updated.

Also, the preliminary cherry sheets are now also updated for both municipal and for regionals.

Yes, we should be talking about Worcester Public Schools administrative spending, but not how it's been done so far

If you watched the first Worcester School Committee, you saw opening statements in which Member Binienda extemporized on publicly approved (by the prior School Committee) contracts of central administrators (as opposed to the internal changes she made as superintendent to administrative contracts not approved by School Committee, without letting anyone know) and Member Biancheria making the classic motion of the late Brian O'Connell: to cut half a million dollars from 'somewhere' in administrative spending. She did this out of order--they weren't on the administrative cost center; that will happen tonight--and she didn't have a motion on where to then move the funding.

The press, of course, obediently trotted out headlines about motions to cut administration that failed, lacking even the context of past history to tell us that this is precisely the aim: the headline, not any meaningful budgetary decision.

There is, however, a section on administrative spending that should be getting--dare we hope?--headlines, but that's in the back of the book. 

This year, the city's spending on schools calculation is reported on page 377 of the budget book; I noted in my review when the budget came out that it was the first place I check, as it's where we see if the city has met net school spending requirements. Of course, the city hasn't. 

Not every dollar spent on public education, Worcester or anywhere, is allocated by the school committee; there is money spent on behalf of the district by the municipality. On page 377, you can find that on in section 9:

For example, in Worcester, the school district doesn't get a water and sewer bill; the city tracks that, and reports it at the end of the year as school spending; for FY25, that is projected to be $735,399.
We have talked about this before when we talk about police, which is projected for next year as $542,304.

It's the third item here, the top line, that I'd like to call your attention to. There is, in any municipal district, things that only the municipality can do. They have (unless delegated) purchasing authority, for example. As anyone who has ever received a Worcester Public Schools paycheck can attest, they send out the actual checks. You can find the list of what the city and district have agreed upon as "allowable expenditures" on pages 378 and 379 of the budget. 

Notice anything about the past several years? Namely, that jump between FY23, when it was $6.6M to this current year, when it is $9M?
Yeah.

Now, let me be entirely honest: when I saw this in this year's budget, I was kicking myself, as I was on the Committee last year, and I, in my study of this page, didn't catch it! Well, there's a reason for that; here's the same section in last year's budget book for FY24 (the last column is FY24, which is the second to last above): 

Between last May and this May, the projection on cityside administration spending increased by $2.4M.
And no one has talked about that.

Because I always have Excel open, anyway, I ran us a little chart on what this line now looks like going back to  (remember, both FY24, which is the current year, and FY25, which starts in July, are projected, not actual): 

Cityside Administration Spending on WPS
FY17-FY25 (FY24 & FY25 projected)
Source: WPS budget FY21, FY24, FY25

And given what happened over the course of this year, one has to wonder if we can count on the $9.2M projection.

I'd suggest that someone should ask about this.
Oh, and yes: even with this claimed increase, the city is still under required net school spending. 

UPDATE: When this was asked during the budget deliberation:

1. the response is that this is due to the Workday system.
2. the Committee was told, in response to Member Mailman's question regarding the City Manager late in the meeting Tuesday telling the Council the city is giving the schools an additional $1.8M (the NSS budget gap for FY24). Per Mr. Allen's response: The schools are still reconciling numbers, have had additional out of district transportation costs in ...and would be looking to use it for that with some transferred to next year...full report to follow in July.
   There are eleven days left in the fiscal year. This is money that this Committee has not seen (and apparently had not been told of), has not voted a new bottom line to include, and has not allocated. When asked about the need to vote the money, Mr. Allen said that he'd need to check with the city auditor; it is a "transfer not an allocation" so it might not need to be.
   I have no idea what that means. 
   If indeed it is to be used for out-of-district transportation, that does not count towards net school spending.
   I am very confused about this, including how it is that it seems the only way anyone knew is because the City Manager told the Council during a meeting. 

Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer

The above is variously ascribed to "lawyers," specified to "trial lawyers," is narrowed to "during cross-examinations," and dismissed as bad advice, but I will say this: 

if you are an elected official pursuing a certain end, and ask for a report that you believe will further that end, be very sure that the resulting report is going to show what you need to support your point.

While one could use several local issues to illustrate this point--the persistent demonstration that no, bike lanes and other road safety measures did not increase car crashes on Mill Street, no matter how many times the Worcester City Council asks is certainly one!--I would here direct your attention to the backup for this Thursday's Worcester School Committee, specifically pages 3 and 4, in response to a request for a report from Member Dianna Biancheria on district transportation.

It is absolutely crucial that whenever we discuss district operated transportation and the current Worcester School Committee, that we remember this August 21, 2021 Worcester Telegram & Gazette headline: 

Despite years of non-responsive terrible service and unfulfillment of the requirements of the contract, and despite repeated analysis that demonstrated that service would improve and would cost less--projected at $3.5M less--if brought in-house, when Maureen Binienda was superintendent, she recommended against bringing transportation in-house.

The Committee voted 6-1 (Monfredo opposed due to her opposition) to move in house in any case. 
Within the same article, the reasoning of one of those six votes in favor was given:

As any parent or student who experienced both would tell you, not only has service improved incredibly, service has also expanded, most notably to running--at no cost to families--buses for field trips and for school-related club activities. We also have much better working conditions for drivers and monitors, in part due to the transportation facility at 115 Northeast Cutoff, but also because working for the district means that the district deals with issues directly, and drivers and monitors aren't left to bear the brunt of poor service, as was the case with the contractor. 

It's also, of course, both state and nationally award winning, and from organizations that don't just take your word for it when you tell them that the numbers work. 

It thus was an odd choice when Biancheria spent part of the June 6 budget hearing--a hearing, let's remember, on a budget that has a $22M budget gap and does not meet required net school spending--asking a series of questions about the transportation line, finishing with a request for a report on all transportation spending.

That report is back for Thursday's meeting: 

Not only has the reason the district moved in house been met--we have buses that show up when they are supposed to in getting students to and from school--but the projections of $3.5M savings were lower.

The district is saving FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY by running their own transportation system.
$3.5M of that has gone back into the system--at a time when most transportation providers are still short drivers, Worcester will run the full 101 routes next year--and nearly $2M is being saved--at at time when transportation contract costs are skyrocketed at double digit percentages.

Aren't we glad we got this report, so we can celebrate even more success of this decision than anticipated?

June Board of Ed: FY25 budget

 Bill Bell on the FY25 budget

Senate has concluded their floor activity: they added a little over $20M in our accounts
from a process standpoint, the bill is in a conference committee
"HOPEFULLY sometime this month or early next month so we can have a timely state budget"
fourth year of SOA; continued support for circuit breaker and reimbursement for special education transportation
significant support has gone out to districts on the newcomer students: another data capture from March to the end of the school year in homeless students: probably another $10M for the period
"we await the final bill"
federal side: winding down ESSER obligation: about 64% claim rate for ESSER III; still close to half a billion dollars; "expect that to drop substantially over the summer"
district can spend through February/March 2026
Moriarty asks for a report on high dosage tutoring
West: "are there any special obligations" for district to spend the money out of 2026?
could we create a state process "with more prescriptiveness"
Bell: there is a process that we control on behalf of the federal government
districts "that have committed" funds
"there's not a new what they can spend it on; we've already blessed their grants"
"we expect the federal review is going to be light...we think that if we say it is okay, the federal government is going to say it is okay"
Craven: heard yesterday 3% "direct student services set aside": could "we reach in" which we have never done
Johnston: coming back in the fall; "we would want to engage with"
districts are used to getting 100% of their funds; then would only get 97%
"would want to engage with superintendents"
how about the SCHOOL COMMITTEES???

and adjourned! 

The Board of Ed meets more than once this week

And if you thought their special Monday meeting to receive a report might be on the Racial Imbalance Advisory Council's report, which came out last week, you'd be wrong! No, Tom Kane has another report out on "education recovery"--he has a scorecard!--so they're having a special meeting. 
Gosh, it's going to be amazing when pet projects of individual Board members don't set agenda items. Also, it would be really smart if we had people OTHER THAN ECONOMISTS talking about the impact of the pandemic on kids.

Anyway, that's at 5 PM today, only online.

Tomorrow, the Board has their usual monthly meeting in Everett with a livestream at 9 AM. On the agenda (most without backups at this time): 

• an update on the Commissioner's search
• the end of year report from the State Student Advisory Council
• an update on DESE's educational vision (there's a link on newly arrived homeless students)
• an FY25 update

You're on your own for tonight, but I'll be liveblogging tomorrow. 

EDIT: I missed one: The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets jointly with the Board of Higher Education on Thursday at 3, in an entirely virtual meeting. That agenda includes a presentation on research of K-12 and higher ed, as well as discussions of early college and the FAFSA. 

for your coping

 

This is a lousy budget season, and watching deliberation may be brutal, so I made us a coping mechanism. (There are three versions.)
Remember, there are two rounds of budget deliberation, so hang onto this for June 20!