Coming to you live today from the Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing at UMass Amherst. A number of the surrounding districts are here--Quabbin Regional brought a bus; Amherst Regional walked over--and I just hope someone told all these people that they don't take public testimony. If you're here and need power, by the way, I have a power strip at one of the outlets, so come over if you need it.
I'll post as we go. Note that they have us in what is the airplane hanger of an auditorium on the first floor of the Campus Center, so I can barely see the committee members; I'm making no promises on being able to identify speakers.
They'll start with intros then have the Secretary with the three Commissioners.
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.
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?
Have I mentioned that it is budget season for Worcester? Happy budget season!
Our June sessions start at 4 with budget, run until about 6, when we break for executive session, then come back at 7 for the regular session, more or less. Here's the budget session.
And remember: the budget isn't done until the final bottom lines are voted. We may review an account and come back to it, if we still have questions or something new has come up.
Because we do budget over two sessions, two weeks apart, we do have the chance to ask questions that may require reports, as they can come back in the second session. As we started Thursday, I requested the following (taken straight from my notes):
My understanding is that there are changes in recommendations from administration since the book was printed; could we have those in writing, please.
If we could please have the relative levels of vacancy in:
Teaching positions
Paraprofessional positions
Wraparound coordinator positions
School psychologist positions
School adjustment counselor positions
Custodial positions
Maintenance service positions
We have not yet received the report requested to be received prior to budget on the realignment of the social emotional learning department; could we please have that information.
We’d requested updated school-by-school budgets, as those in the book do not have all expected-as-of-now assignments; if we could please have that ahead of taking the salary accounts, please.
I’d like a report, please, on what both the intent and the perceived need is for the additional position in communications, as that is not otherwise outlined.
We have as yet not received any information regarding the efficacy of the climate and culture positions, including the deans. If we could please have that, as there is a proposed expansion.
Mayor Petty decided to take athletics out of order--Athletic Director Dave Shea wanted to make the Doherty boys' volleyball post-season game against Chelsea (they won)--and thus we took both the non-salary and the salary accounts for athletics first. Member McCullough asked if the operational budget is adequate for supplying what the athletic teams actually need, noting that it comes up often in the community, where we also see a decent amount of fundraising. Mr. Shea affirmed that it was. Member Mailman asked where we could find the streaming services the School Committee voted to add this year; it's coming from the cable access funding, which Mr. Allen noted is a special revenue fund, which we (the Committee) don't allocate by cost center. I asked how MIAA dues is calculated (it's the number of teams) and track rental ($3400). Member Johnson followed up on Member McCullough's item (sent to budget so we'll hear about it at the next meeting) asking about athletic trainers, which were not included in this year's proposed budget. On athletic salaries, Member Clancey asked what sports were being added in middle schools; Mr. Shea said the schools were polled, and the middle schools all decided on flag football for both boys and girls. Volleyball, soccer, and basketball are already played in the middle school; Forest Grove does softball, baseball, and field hockey, as well, as club sports. On that last, I tried to poke a bit at this inequity, the result of parents being able to volunteer at Forest Grove (you can see this about 24 minutes in), which is a capacity lacked by most of our middle schools, and I'm not sure that I'm all that satisfied with the answers. I also asked how middle schoolers are included in high school sports teams (grades 7 and 8 at 7-12 schools can play on the teams; grade 8 can play on an associated 9-12 lowest level team IF there aren't cuts made to get them AND we get a waiver from MIAA ahead; the district applies for the waivers as a matter of course).
On retirement, Member Mailman asked a bit about how it is put together and how those increases come about; you can find some of this on page 157 of the budget. Mr. Allen noted this account has been going up consistently at a rate higher than inflation. The state requires that the city fully fund by 2038; the city is projecting that it will be done by 2032.
On transportation, Mayor Petty opened by commenting that it has been "very successful...you proved to be correct, Mr. Allen." This account is the non-salary side, which means many of these costs are going away, leading to my question of what is going to be left here once we've moved off stop gaps. Mr. Allen said we'll be continuing to have some out-of-district contract service, even as much of that moves in house; McKinney-Vento transportation is being moved in house, and out-of-district vocational, we are doing ourselves. The "stuff" of the final line in this account is dropping as the bus leases go away. Maintenance, fuel, and technology on the buses will continue to be here. Dr. Monárrez reminded Mayor Petty of the MASBO award just received as well:
The @worcesterpublic was recognized tonight by @MASBONet with the Donald Johnson Operational & Cost Efficiency Award for the successful move to full district-operated student transportation this year! Award comes with a $2,500 student scholarship. pic.twitter.com/TRnV7BrVx4
On health insurance, Mayor Petty commented that it wasn't going up that dramatically.
On workers' comp, there were no comments or questions.
On personal services, Member Johnson asked about security guards still being included; we'd discussed that this would be discussed as part of the safety audit, which hasn't yet come back. Mr. Allen said they hoped to have an update at the next meeting; administration wants to have the report back to make a recommendation. I noted that professional development has historically been underfunded, so it is good to see it increasing. I asked what the collaboration is with UMass Med is with the North quadrant that requires payment from us; I was told that the internship for the Ch. 74 program is what is being paid for; we're also going to get further information on that. I also raised the $35,000 that we are paying WEDF for publicity and alum services; Dr. Monárrez said that this is more alum services and "ability for them to have someone to have the ability to generate the funds." I'm just weirded out by this one. Member Mailman also wanted to clarify if it was UMass Med versus the hospital back on the North pipeline.
On special education tuition, Member Mailman did some division, coming up with $35,000/student for the collaborative and $55,000 for tuition (on average). Mr. Allen noted that some programs cost more than others, that this would be the average; circuit breaker gets applied against the out-of-district costs. Ms. Seale noted that we don't, for example, have a Deaf or hard of hearing program. I asked about the lesser impact of the increase in 766 tuition on Worcester (which jumped 14% statewide this year); Mr. Allen notes that we're serving fewer students through such placements. Ms. Seale also noted that students also had aged out.
On instructional materials, in an exchange that starts here, Member Clancey reminded us that the outline of the budget was providing an expected baseline for schools, "and my question is: is $75 per pupil enough?" Dr. Monárrez offered that she'd been told by the team that it is, but looking at it, she did wonder, since we haven't done a major increase and inflation has an impact. Member Clancey asked what "behavior monitoring software" is; Ms. Azarloza said that it was the Panorama universal screener being used for social emotional surveying, saying that it drills down to which student and which social emotional competencies they are. Member Clancey asked for more information on that, leading to a back and forth on what it was that was being referenced. Member Johnson said that he had the same comment on materials, as we had talked about it, and agreed it needed to be resolved. I agreed that "behavior monitoring software" was something we needed more information on, as that sounded ominous. I also agreed that the per pupil allocation needed to be looked at. I then made a motion, acknowledging that district-operated transportation was saving us money, to move $600,000 from transportation (salaries) to instructional materials, specifically to the line A, which is the per pupil allocation, which is about $25/pupil, thus bringing the allocation to $100/pupil. Mayor Petty asked where the money would come from; Mr. Allen said it would represent savings that was realized from last year, and that there was flexibility to make the transfer. Member Mailman then asked if we had targets on funding other categories with SOA dollars; if we're 50% through. Mr. Allen said (this matters, so you're getting a block quote):
In an ideal world, we would be closing those gaps in all areas, proportionately to the complete increase in our SOA money--that'd be the ideal world--but because of ESSER and CBRF and other monies that became available through the pandemic, a lot of money has been spent on Chromebooks and instructional materials through those other funding sources, which do not get credit in those charts, so, however, when those funds run out, we'll still then have--even though we'll have all these Chromebooks and all these textbooks--there'll still be technically a gap in relation to our SOA spending in instructional supplies and materials. So with three years remaining, we will be, through purchasing Chromebooks, through additional textbooks that may come of need, and through increases in per pupil money, those are ways that I would see us over the next three years closing that gap, whether completely or not, that will kind of pan out as we get into the FY25, '26, and '27 budgets.
Member Mailman asked if asking for a three year, rest of the budget, would it be appropriate? Mr. Allen said that he thought it would be the administration's desired state as well, but if we're still adding special education positions greater than the SOA increase, still seeing employee benefits and fixed charges increasing at greater than the inflation rate, and we're still spending at foundation, then we won't get there. There need to be adjustments, but that won't happen until SOA is done and the foundation budget is being reconsidered. Mailman said as a school committee member, her confusion is how this relates to longer term. Allen said, they're agreeing; by half through SOA, we'd hope to be halfway closing the gap, but we won't be due to special education and benefits and fixed charges. Mailman asked where the biggest challenges are, if he knew offhand; instructional materials, professional development, to which Allen added operations and maintenance. Member Kamara wanted to know more about the behavioral monitoring software, as well; Mayor Petty noted that a request for a report had already been done, and reminded the Committee that nothing is done until the full budget is done. Kamara also asked about the transfer, wanted to understand "the deficit being done" through money being moved. Mr. Allen said that administration did not have any hesitation or objection to the transfer request, that it could be done with no impact on transportation services. The transfer passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous Ed OM has many things in it, including Worcester's MASC dues, which goes to pay my salary, from which I thus need to recuse myself. I asked if we had any information about Worcester Future Teachers is creating future teachers; Ms. Perez said WPS would like to see that, but we don't necessarily know that. I then asked about rental of space, and what the process is on weighing of rental spaces; some of rented spaces and some don't. I also asked about being realistic and clear on travel costs, which support professional development in some cases. Member Mailman asked why instructional technology is less than last year; Mr. Allen said it was Chromebooks coming off of lease, as presented at F&O a few months ago. Dr. Kyriazis said that the leases are being started over time so there isn't a huge single cost, with continued replenishment of supplies. Member Mailman asked about renting space; some of the space at Northeast Cutoff is the computer techs office (Nutrition, Facilities, and Transportation is also there). Mailman asked what the longer term game plan was for leases and if the city decided to sell any of our buildings, how would that be impacted. Allen said that those are the conversations that were started with the City Manager; a long term of plan for buildings, uses of space, leases of space, uses of Becker buildings, to decide if we need to continue some leases or end them. He believes we could have a more comprehensive plan over the next year for use of buildings. Mailman also asked if all vocational programs were a member of Skills USA; Allen said he'd have to check, but the increase is that the district is covering that cost for the school rather than it coming out of per pupil funding.
On unemployment compensation, Member Mailman asked about expected for this year versus projected; Allen said this is based on historical use, but that close attention would be paid in quarterly reports.
On building utilities, I said I hoped that I'd live to see line C, which is number two fuel oil, finally go away (we're down to JUST the building at Foley Stadium, now that we're no longer at St. Casimir!). I asked what "reallocating net metering costs" meant (that's part of how they balanced the budget). WPS, in addition to net metering credits from the solar arrays we have over our parking lots and on some rooftops, gets credits from the solar array at the former city landfill (you can see it from Route 146); Mr. Allen said it was a reallocation of some of those credits being referenced. I also asked if the city has yet gotten a new natural gas contract; the projected 35% change is reflective of the continued volatility of the market.
On facilities, Member Mailman noted the significant increase; Mr. Allen said it was a deliberate attempt "maybe not as much as we should have" to add money to facilities maintenance to fix the schools. Mailman asked for the connection with the capital budget; Allen said the cutoff was $150,000. Mailman said "this is a purposeful attempt to do better." Allen agreed. Mailman asked if we'd see greater detail in our upcoming F&O meetings. Allen said these funds are for not only doing the emergency repairs but do the repairs that are flagged ahead; to be proactive and do active maintenance. He said he thinks there are 6000 outstanding SchoolDude requests; they're prioritized by greatest need. Rich Ikonen, our new facilities director, was introduced by Dr. Monárrez, who noted that he'd stepped into a big task, and said that they had great confidence. I echoed the Mayor's comment that this was more money that had been budgeted in past, while still not coming close to what we know is necessary. I did ask about the $1.7M specific to schools, that it isn't going to lessen attention elsewhere; it's increasing school based requests, Allen said, without taking away. I said that measuring ourselves against foundation isn't necessarily going to be useful, as it doesn't take into account two decades of an underfunding capital and an underfunded maintenance budget does to actual need. Allen noted, as the superintendent had Tuesday, that just from 2019, what was deemed inoperable was $70M of repairs in our schools, so we'd have to clear that backlog, and then we'd need to be doing "way more preventative maintenance," but that isn't something we're going to approach in SOA. I said that it would only be of use in going back to the state. I then asked about the $1M in filters as ongoing as part of the upkeep of larger modern systems in our new buildings; Allen said upkeep of the modern systems was partially included here, but that the $1M in filters would need to be added to the general fund, as it is in ESSER this year.
and then we recessed to executive session. The budget gets picked up with salary accounts on June 15.
Rob O'Donnell: coronavirus relief funds (102): working through applications now; have received 341 as of August 31; have reviewed about 75% of those received. If haven't heard about approval yet, chances are that it has been approved; just waiting to be set up in system to send out payments; have issued payments for 162 so far; about 80 or so working on still reviewing; Some are purchasing Chromebooks through the state; total is just north of $5M; using Remote Learning Essentials grant for that (state is applying those funds for it; if that isn't enough, it will come out of above); will need to reduce value of grant by value of purchase EOYR for grants; will be needed to be added to revenue sources for FY20 report if used in FY20 There is more grant funding beyond DESE; municipal funds coming from cities and towns (also "other federal grant" line in reporting) Might towns receive more funds before Dec. 31? Don't think they've gotten it all already; was coming in two phases
Local contribution study: collecting public comment to inform study (had intended to do public forums); open through October 16 You should comment!
Jay Sullivan: a comment was made on the regional call that municipalities (with the exception of cities that are real hot spots) have more money than they can really spend; some may not be sharing because they are hoping to use it for revenue replacement; heed advice and keep track of all COVID-19 expenses; ex: paying school nutrition workers despite building being closed; those taking leave due to COVID-19 reporting piece on grants due on October 30 to walk through what that requirement would be Student Opportunity Act and how it relates to SOA was to make budget more realistic on special education and health insurance, but also to increase funding EL and low income students; phased in implementation over 7 years would be ch. 70 increase over 7 years; bulk of increase in state aid would have gone to districts with largest number of low income and English learners; also changed circuit breaker, phasing in circuit breaker, and froze circuit breaker threshhold (was 4x statewide foundation; froze at FY19 level $45793); made more expenses eligible; BUT have to reimburse instructional costs BEFORE any transportation; "I have no idea" what will be paid this year "because we don't have a budget"; will be basing what we do on level funded circuit breaker "If SOA isn't being implemented for those districts that have high need students...then should we really be implementing the circuit breaker side?" "If we're not giving you the medicine, should we be giving you the spoonful of sugar?" The FY20 threshhold if NOT frozen would be raised ($21M statewide at 75%) "we're supposed to be making payments next week" but we don't know what we're getting not exactly sure what's going to happen with that
"a lot of science to show that the building matters a lot" ventilation related to better test taking results, better health for those in building "over 200 scientific studies" showing link between building and student health "something like temperature" just looking at test scores on exam days 12% more likely to fail the test on a warm day "one of the factors it was a hot day and whether or not it was a comfortable environment"
"this is not something that is a new phenomenon" we've underinvested for decades "an investment in the school building is an investment in students"
you can't "just open" schools there needs to be preparation of buildings ahead of time building a culture of health and safety: masking, distance become the norm "the idea of a hybrid plan never made an sense to me" manage transition time; make lunchtime safer rethink transportation modify attendance
designing buildings with infectious disease in mind overheating old buildings to force windows to be open for air exchange "opening windows in November?" sure if it gets kids in school
most deaths related to temperature swings in shoulder swings; bodies are acclimated, buildings aren't ready what are buildings built for? What are people accustomed to?
start by getting a handle on what's working and what's not what systems are working and what are on
improvements will help with other health impacts "I know it's resources, but I think it's less about resources than about prioritization" um...it's about resources...
...which as I've listened to this, I am realizing is a major issue in his presentation and argument: saying, as he did that kids and teachers should just put on sweaters and coats and we'll open the windows is to ignore that many of our kids don't have additional layers to come to school with (and they may not have bodies adjusted for cold, either). Utterly ignoring the impacts of poverty (and institutional racism, for that matter) both of our students and their families and of our districts means we can't have a realistic conversation about these things if we don't recognize that aspect of it.
I do wonder how much this has to do with DESE's push to get students back in school.
Why is there discussion/controversy/activism about the low income implementation in school funding in the House 2 budget?
As I mentioned when I ran through the Governor's proposed budget back in January, most of the sections of the Foundation Budget Review Commission's recommendations and the Student Opportunity Law that had to do with funding were implemented at 1/7th of the goal, under the general understanding that this will be phased in over seven years.
Not low income.
What did happen with low income was this: the law provided for a one year "best option" count on students: for each district, the state looked at the direct certification count--the one we've been using, through the matching of students via the databases--and also ran the FY16 percentage of students that were low income then (the last year that everyone was being credited on free/reduced lunch, 'though some districts had already switched), and each district got the higher of those two counts.
Note that if you download the FY16 spreadsheet, you can double-check your number by calculating your percentage of low income students that year. I assume that there were business offices that did this ahead of time. And each of the FY21 preliminary foundation budget sheets has, in the bottom right corner, a comparison of the FY16 percentage applied to this year's enrollment and this year's direct certification:
Here's Worcester's. See the blue box?
That "best of," as has been widely noted, added about 46,000 students statewide to the count of low income. Those students, of course, were not all in one district, and, as with any such count, there were districts that benefited more than others. Worcester picked by 2000 more students for this year; as Mike noted, Northbridge actually lost kids even with the FY16 count being used (it would have gone lower if it were only direct cert) and so on.
However, as a result of the the increased count of students, the state of course had to increase the amount of funding going to that line. In order to keep to the overall $300M or so planned--the overall 1/7th--the rate change was only implemented by 4/100ths, not the 1/7th of the other sections.
This was part of the Mass Taxpayers' Foundation presentation yesterday
to the Connecticut Valley Superintendents' Roundtable.
We were told it is a slide that DESE doesn't like.
This isn't a thing that I or anyone else cooked up; you can find it right on DESE's page on FY21 under "Foundation Budget Rates."
As noted in the above slide that you probably can't read, this means the rates for low income will then have to pick up the difference over the next six years in order to meet the seven year generally understood goal.
It also, as a side note, means that some of the money gets postponed having inflation applied by a year.
The slide also notes, however, that the final section of the law says that the changes are to be implemented in "an equitable and consistent manner."
Thus the question is: is this equitable? is this consistent? does it line up with the intent of the law? is in line with what was fought so hard for?
Student Opportunity Act : Rob O'Donnell
higher health care rates based on the GIC: 3 year average
separate inflation index for health insurance
fully funding those goal rate by 2027
starting point disparity: do we actually ever catch up with it?
you'll get to the GIC rate, you'll not just get there right away
are the rates in the bill going to move over the implementation
goal rates will change in each subsequent budget cycle
FY20 reflected an incremental increase towards the goal rates
4% in district, 5% vocational district
"this tracks pretty close to actual that we see"
English Learner: similar to what was proposed by the Governor
increases rate and redistributes to have higher rates to high school students
goal rates are expressed in FY20 dollars; they'll also be increased by inflation over the life of the bill
decile system in low income currently
moving away from deciles (about 33 districts in each group) to groups (there are twelve)
setting hard breaks between them
counted up to 133% for econ disad; couldn't reliably count up to 185%
"likely that the economically disadvantaged match will still be the core"
likely some additional counting that will have to take place
possibly further data collection
if you've moved to CEP, you're not collecting forms
DESE may need to come up with some other method of collecting data
until they come up with a new method, authorizes going back to FY16 low income counts as of October 1, 2014, some those numbers together as a percentage of your enrollment in for FY16
that would be your FY21 accounting method
"would use that as the basis to augment" the count
"there are some districts that we're counting more through the econ dis match than we did through the free and reduced lunch count"
"we wouldn't lower your count; this would only increase your count"
jumps about 6% between the lower groups, then goes up more like 10% in the higher groups
would we go back to a form collection or some other method?
"That's the big wild card to the bill"
charter school reimbursement fully funded over three years
don't talk about if it would be done on a six year schedule or a three year schedule
or if it will only be for high enrollment growth
increasing foundation increases charter tuition rates which increases charter reimbursement (if it isn't only tied to increased enrollment)
Data commission
requirement to report by expediture by foundation budget category (there used to be a section that did this in the End of Year report)
Some question on if this will further require a breakout of state versus local spending
Rural school study
Circuit breaker to include cost of out-of-district transportation
"we will be coming out with what we expect to see on a bill" to verify transportation to the individual student
"circuit breaker is student by student"
going to "blow up the program"
we're going to be a half a billion pretty soon
freezes at last year's circuit breaker number and ONLY GOES UP BY INFLATION after that
Image text: THE TALE CONTINUES...the impact on the underfunding of the state's foundation budget...January 8, 2019|6-8pm|Malden High/Fitchburg State University/New Bedford Keith Middle School
Not sure that I'll be able to make this, but, as was announced at MASBO earlier this month, the Tale of Two/Four Cities is going on the road and adding many more. As I have more details, I will add them, but save the date if there is one near you!
UDPATED with a new image that has a location for New Bedford!
Steve Finnegan, MASC General Counsel, is at MASBO's Law Institute today to talk about the McDuffy case. Note, by the way, Worcester Magazine's update on Worcester and Brockton.
MASBO says:
Attorney Finnegan will retrace the activity which lead to the landmark decision focusing on his particular activity in this litigation. He will also review the end result 25 years later and offer thoughts on how that decision (and subsequent decisions such as Hancockmay impact future litigation.
Big moment for #MAEdu justice, as my #FBRC bill reported favorably out of Education Committee. TY to my co-chair @repalicepeisch, & the many advocates, parents, students, and 117 co-sponsors who’ve helped get the bill this far! Onward to the finish line! #mapolipic.twitter.com/U9yC1LIEz4
We'd be remiss in not thanking MASBO and MassBudget for pointing out these gaps, lo these many years ago...finally we're getting a bit of legislative progress.
Locally, of course, no one was been more stalwart in pointing out that he'd be giving us bad news less often if we fixed this than Brian Allen. So...hat tips all around.
My own life has made it impossible for me to get this up earlier; apologies for how long this has taken.
Back before state politics pushed it off the front page, much of the concern over the City of Boston's IRS fine for a variety of issues was around the schools. Do note, however, the details of the case:
In all, the IRS issued seven findings, four of which centered on mismanagement of student activity accounts at more than a dozen Boston schools. The three other findings focused on city payrolls. In addition to the Medicare deductions, the city was cited for a failure to deduct “deferred compensation” for some employees who do not qualify for the city’s pension plan and overtaxing some earnings.
I had gotten exactly this far in posting when Burlington Superintendent Eric Conti's post on his district's student activity accounts came across my Twitter feed; if you're looking for a local perspective on what an audit and district response looks like, give it a read.
There's a lot to talk about there, 'though the Globe editorial board captured my main puzzlement over the whole thing, which is the degree to which Superintendent Chang was getting blamed for a mess. Most of the fine was municipal, not schools, and the error appears to well predate him; what came to his attention he appears to have worked to correct. The biggest error he seems to have made was not letting his Committee know as soon as possible (truism about district governance: never let your school committee find out something about the schools from the front page!)
The IRS audit found federal (and, relatedly, state) tax issues. This did flag a SEPARATE issue of the use of student activity accounts.
I do want to stress here, though, something which I think got somewhat lost in the coverage: the IRS was not (and does not) audit for the use of student activity accounts. The IRS was auditing around tax payments, and, because student activity accounts were being used to pay for staffing without paying for taxes, they were flagged. They weren't flagged for the use, though: they were flagged for the non-payment of taxes.
So what ARE student activity accounts, anyway?
They're covered under MGL Ch. 71, section 47, which reads as follows (if it looks too long, read the bold sections):
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph or section fifty-three of chapter forty-four, the school committee of a city, town or district may authorize a school principal to receive money in connection with the conduct of certain student activities and to deposit such money, with the municipal or regional school district treasurer, into an interest bearing bank account, hereinafter referred to as the Student Activity Agency Account, duly established by vote of the school committee to be used for the express purpose of conducting student activities. Interest earned by such Student Activity Agency Account shall be retained by the fund and the school committee shall determine for what purpose such earnings may be used. In addition to such Student Activity Agency Account, the school committee may authorize the municipal or regional school district treasurer to establish a checking account, hereinafter referred to as the Student Activity Checking Account, to be operated and controlled by a school principal and from which funds may be expended exclusively for student activity purposes for the student activities authorized by the school committee. Such account shall be used for expenditures only and funds received for student activities may not be deposited directly into such account. The school committee shall vote to set the maximum balance that may be on deposit in such Student Activity Checking Account. The principal designated to operate and control such Student Activity Checking Account shall give bond to the municipality or district in such amount as the treasurer shall determine to secure the principal's faithful performance of his duties in connection with such account. To the extent that the funds are available in such Student Activity Agency Account, funds up to the maximum balance set by the school committee shall be transferred from the Student Activity Agency Account through the warrant process to initially fund such Student Activity Checking Account. Periodically, to the extent that funds are available in such Student Activity Agency Account, the municipal or regional school district treasurer shall reimburse such Student Activity Checking Account, through the warrant process, to restore the limit set by the school committee. The principal shall adhere to such administrative procedures as the municipal or regional school district treasurer or accountant may prescribe. There shall be an annual audit of the student activity funds which shall be conducted in accordance with procedures as agreed upon between the school committee and the auditor based upon guidelines issued by the department of education.
Important point: the accounts exist solely to fund student activities, and not just "activities of students," but specific, school-recognized organizations (the band, the senior class, and so forth, though this may be less specific in the elementary schools). It isn't there for general use, but it has to be attached to a specific student activity; note that the specifics of this are to be spelled out through policy which is adopted by the school committee.
This doesn't specifically bar paying stipends (you would still, of course, need to do it legally, with withholding and all!), and I haven't read anything suggesting that anyone has weighed in on that. A good case, of course, would have to be made that the stipends were not just useful to the school, but specific to student activity (and don't take that as legal advice!).
Note further that there are in effect two accounts: there's one account the money goes into (the Student Activity Agency Account) and there's one it comes out of (the Student Activity Checking Account); the checking account has a maximum balance, set by School Committee policy, and money can only be transferred from where the money is deposited to where it is spent by the regular funding process (this is usually warrants; it isn't in Boston). Also, those handling the funds have to be covered under the municipal (or district) bonding.
The accounts MUST--and this is new!--be audited annually. I'm going to recommend here that those interested look at MASBO's guidance, updated last year (that's a Word doc), which reads in part as follows:
The Superintendent or the School Business Administrator shall arrange for the annual audit, not the bookkeeper or the principal involved with the student activity account. The audit may be an internal audit performed internally by someone completely independent of the process or an independent third party if so approved by the School Committee; the internal audit must be documented. At least one time every three years, however, an independent audit firm must perform the audit. The School Committee may elect to have all annual audits done by an independent audit firm. The dissemination of all audit reports should follow School Committee policy.
The cost of the independent audit may be paid by the School Committee from its budget or from the interest earned on the student activity account. The School Committee should specify in its Policy how the cost of the audit will be paid.
In addition to the annual audit, there should be on-going internal reviews by the School Business Administrator or another designee of the Superintendent. These internal reviews should involve reviewing the monthly reports prepared by the individuals having daily oversight over the accounts.
Worcester updated its policy when the guidance came out to provide for annual external student activity account audits. Thus the provision of an external audit for Boston isn't really that big a deal, 'though $600,000 is still a lot of money! It is very concerning, though, to read this from Mayor Walsh:
"These accounts were launched in the early '90s; they have never been reviewed or audited until now."
To be honest, I mostly hope he's just wrong about that. The requirements changed last year, but there was always a requirement that the accounts be audited.
There is also an explicit requirement for ongoing internal reviews of the accounts under the oversight of the superintendent and the school business administrator.
I'm going to flag here how often the School Committee and the policy they pass is part of the above. I can't find the BPS policies on the website--that may just be me!--but that would be the only other piece, since now there is a change in procedure, including an annual audit, that I can see missing.
(Curious about what that might look like? Check out JJF.)
and there are a few...
The Governance and Employee Issues subcommittee meets on Wednesday at 5:30. Of note at this meeting: they're reviewing the student handbook--which suggests no substantive changes--and section I of the district policy manual (that's Instruction)--which I also don't see anything to raise eyebrows on--with one exception: they're about to let vocational students out of the two years of foreign language requirement ('though that's only in the handbook, not in the policy manual...and the two should agree). That would mean that students who don't complete that requirement would be ineligible for admission to (for example) UMass, which is why the MassCore requirements (including the two years of language) were adopted.
They're also hearing about collaboration around the Byrne Criminal Justice grant and discussion of municipal governance and of registering students to vote.
On Wednesday night, the final CPPAC meeting of the year is 7 pm at the Worcester Art Museum, and the guest speakers are Superintendent Binienda and City Manager Augustus to talk about the budget. A good time to ask questions...
The School Committee picks up budget again at 4pm on Thursday. The sequence of accounts is here, and they left off with security guards. There's a lot left to get through. If past experience is a guide, they'll go as far as they can til 6, recess to executive session, come back at 7 for the regular meeting, and pick up budget again once they've completed the regular meeting.
Mr. O'Connell is proposing having public meetings and hearings as part of the development of the new South High School.
He also wants to discuss departmental consolidation with the city.
He also is suggesting two meetings a month in summer (continuing the regular year schedule) and an additional meeting in months that have a fifth Thursday.
Miss McCullough is asking for a report on itinerant special education staff caseloads, specifically referencing Boston, and also a report on "what, if any, orientation, training or ongoing professional development is provided by special education department leadership to principals, as it relates to itinerant special education staff."
The committee is being asked to accept a donation of $19.10 for classroom books, of $1000 for SAT for seniors, of $1000 for a scholarship (due to Mr. Allen's award), of $676 for special education transitions, of $250 for the alternative program (from an award they won!), of $660 from Intel, and of $13,000 from the Quinsigamond Village Improvement Council for equipment. They're also being asked to vote a prior year invoice of $585 and invoices of $7695.
Mr. Foley is suggesting the following:
To ask the Mayor and the Superintendent to develop a new approach to the School Committee agenda that will make the meetings more effective, productive, and deliberative. Suggestions would include the establishment of a consent agenda for items such as routine approvals of donations and recognitions, the development of criteria for recognitions, designated meetings for honoring recipients of recognitions, and the presence on the agenda at each meeting or every other meeting an important educational policy issue facing Worcester Public Schools that school committee members would learn about (through materials distributed prior to the meeting) and discuss with administrators at the meeting.
There is an executive session scheduled for 6 pm on a grievance, contract negotiations with the teachers' union and with non-represented personnel (both non-administrative and administrative), and:
To authorize the Superintendent to negotiate an employment contract for Susan O’Neil, Ph.D. as the Deputy Superintendent, effective July 1, 2017.
...which I assume means that the committee voted in favor of the hire?
I'm posting this morning from the MASBO Annual Institute in Falmouth where this morning the presentation is "Beyond Sandy Hook" a panel discussion on Sandy Hook. Hashtag for the conference is #MASBOAI17.
Presenters this morning:
Michele Gay, parent of Josephine Gay
Daniel Jewiss, CT State Police
Natalie Hammond, teacher, Sandy Hook Elementary
Joseph Erardi, current superintendent of Newton
I
don’t think this rises to the level of a full “Novick Reports,” but I did want
to pass along a few notes yesterday from MASBO’s February meeting, particularly
as it focused heavily on state budget issues.
The
Mass Taxpayers’ Foundation opened with an analysis of both FY17 and FY18 (my
notes are here). There was a particular emphasis on the gap between revenue
and expenditures, and in particular the increasing costs of MassHealth.
Jay
Sullivan from DESE gave his update (notes).
Along with reminders of due dates and reports, he did give some projections for
FY18 based on the Governor’s budget (‘though he also reminded us that the
Governor’s budget isn’t the end). Do note that the charter reimbursement
percentage he gave of 73% bundles in the facilities funding, so that’s not
really the number you’re looking for. He did also flag coming changes due to
ESSA on how Title I works.
Melissa
King of DESE gave an update on the Governor’s budget (notes).
In addition to what you already know, she did note that this year 92 districts
are getting foundation aid; the remainder of districts are getting hold
harmless aid plus the (Governor’s) $20/pupil increase. That brings the amount
of funding from the state over foundation aid to over $400 million.
They
invited Roger Hatch (now retired) to reflect on state funding of education (notes).
Overall, he pointed to the difference having a foundation budget has made from
a state budgetary perspective: it pulled equity into the equation (when making
additions or cuts), which had not previously been the case, and it established
a floor beyond which the state can/does (?) not cut when it comes to education
funding.
The
school business officials continued their work on data management (in concert
with DESE) in the afternoon; a peek
at that is here.
Note juggle of positions here, due to retirement of Roger Hatch (who was the Ch. 70 guy):
Jay Sullivan, Associate Commissioner Melissa King, Director School Finance Rob O’Donnell, Director School Business Services
probably mostly notes on budget, once they get there. Oh, hey, I'd missed that this is on here!
To accept a donation in the amount of $2,500 for student scholarships from the Voya Foundation in recognition of the Worcester Public Schools being the 2016 recipient of the Donald Johnson Operational and Cost Efficiency Award from the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials.
Verdolino (quoting Brian Allen): "we believe that this collaborative budget approach has brought millions of dollars" in cost efficiency
Allen "is an exemplary business official, as I'm sure you all know"
Worcester gave the best testimony to FBRC; hope for a resolution to bring a better resolution for Worcester
recognize school districts for their efforts in developing
cost efficient approaches to addressing particular operational areas that commonly tax the budgets of school systems and that are also capable of being replicated by other districts throughout the Commonwealth.
This year's award for WPS recognizes the cost savings--and improved services!--due to bringing services for students with autism back in house.
Department of Local Services serves all cities and towns, all regional school districts, charter schools, utility districts, and development agencies
they are the ones who deal with local aid
Superintendent of the Taunton Public Schools posting as we go
"Educational reform need not be at the expense of relationships. It is quite possible to have both."
"children suffer when people don't take time with relationships"
