The first Worcester School Committee meeting of the new term

The Worcester School Committee had their first business meeting of the new term (and new makeup) on January 18.
While I noted the change in the budget bottom line settled at the meeting (also noted by the T&G), it seems clear that this Committee where keeping the record straight is going to be necessary, and, while I do want to recommend you take a look at Bill Shaner's piece on last week, I think keeping track of what's going on will be helpful (and the tracking was kinda shaky in this meeting, to be honest, with roll calls consistently out of order and reported incorrectly more than once).
As always, I'm not going to pretend here to be anything other than what and who I am, writing as a citizen of the city, so you can read with that in mind. The commentary is largely in italics. 

Open question on appointments for Worcester School Committee subcommittees

 Mayor Petty announced earlier this week that he wouldn't be appointing subcommittees for the Worcester School Committee until "all members are eligible for chairmanship," deeming this part of the "equitable opportunity for representation," as reflecting the new committee structure. Under the rules of the committee as passed in December, members must have taken the state mandated training in order to serve as vice chair or chair of a subcommittee.

Setting aside the the degree to which the committee may reflect "equitable opportunities for representation," this seems to miss that meeting the state mandate is of course a minimum bar; chairing a subcommittee would, one hopes, also reflect close attention to and demonstration of the role of the school committee in district governance; ability to run a meeting according to parliamentary procedure; and, ideally, experience in the ongoing work of this committee in particular. One would certainly hope that such standards would apply to the appointment of a role in leadership. 

Also, I do wonder what happens, as has been true in every committee to serve since the mandate started in 2002, save the last committee, if not every member chooses to go through training. That self-imposed "all eligible" condition would appear to rather tie the hands of the chair. 

Hearing on the proposed charter school

Hey, so before I start this not-at-all liveblog of the charter school hearing, which will absolutely not cover everything, and which is mostly drawing from my Twitter feed (scroll UP), but also other sources, please note:

YOU CAN STILL SUBMIT TESTIMONY THROUGH JANUARY 4!
It goes to charterschools@mass.doe.edu

And as always, the following is my summary, my work, my commentary, and does not claim to be otherwise. 

As MassLive notes in their coverage: "Of the 13 people that spoke in favor of the charter school, 11 were board members, trustees, teachers or staff at Old Sturbridge Academy or Old Sturbridge Village."

A few reflections on the Worcester superintendent search

 As always, of course, everything I say here is coming just from me.

Black background of the City of Worcester seal
in rainbow shades; this is my WorcesterWares shirt. 

One thing that I have found rather heartbreaking about Worcester, especially around the schools, has been the difficulty of dreaming. We've had so little money for so long, and we've been so stuck in other ruts, that we haven't really talked about what we'd really like our schools to be. What would we do for our kids if we could? How do we want our schools to work for, yes, our students, but also for our employees and for our larger community?

We also too often don't recognize who we really are as a district now, either. If the mark of a Cockney was being born within earshot of Bow Bells, too often the mark of what makes one "Worcester" or seen by some as able to serve Worcester well, has seen similar limitations.  

Superintendent searches, done well, are about hope. 

They're a chance for a community to take stock of where they are and who they are and who they want to be. Done well, not only those who think about district direction all the time, but plenty of people who have their heads down and their shoulders to the wheel on district and community, think about where the district is going and how they're going to get there, and to talk to each other about that.

I want to give credit where it is due: it was last term's committee that not only said we needed a search, but a full, professional, national one, and that created and voted the RFP that outlined that kind of conversation in the community, with that kind of work to follow over the search.

Worcester, further energized by an election that saw change, then saw that community conversation fully inform the position description that was adopted by the Worcester School Committee. What Worcester said we needed is what the Committee said we needed, and who Greenwood Asher went to look for. 

Mayor Petty appointed a large (and I say that as a professional!) search committee that drew from all over Worcester, from all sorts of backgrounds and connections, and charged them with doing the first round screening. That, again, is a courageous thing to do: you're giving over authority, and you're doing so to a group that is not under tight reins.

Search committee work is A LOT: reviewing all the applications thoroughly, doing what homework you feel is necessary, then working with a committee on evaluating people to interview. Then attending all the interviews--we did eleven, over two full work days!--with great attention, listening carefully for what makes each applicant different and how well they answer. Then doing another round of evaluation with the committee.

And let's be blunt: those discussions, if they're going to bring the community forward, are going to involve all the questions raised in the search: who is Worcester? Who do we want to be? What are the needs of the community and how are those best met?
Those are not easy conversations. As Senator Chang-Díaz said at Monday's YWCA Stand against Racism: “If this work is comfortable…you’re not doing it right.”
I am really grateful that we had a search committee that not only were who they are and worked hard, but were courageous in their commitment to our students. 

Also, they kept confidentiality. As the Massachusetts General Law notes, it is in the interest of the district to have the first round of screening be confidential, as the quality of candidates a district receives is enormously better if it isn't public until they have a real chance. This was a lot of people, and they have kept faith with the district, which shows integrity and commitment on the part of everyone involved. 

And I'd be remiss here if I didn't get a salute to Molly McCullough who chaired the search committee, which meant everything from being an ongoing conduit to and from the search committee, to creating schedules and agendas and question series, to responding to questions and queries from all directions. She did it with patience and thoughtfulness (and hours and hours of work!). 

Superintendent searches are also one of the more difficult things for a School Committee to do. It is a very big decision to make. It is a lot of trust to put in someone. It is always going to be second-guessed by someone (who does the second guessing tells you something about the choice you made). Our Committee trusting each other enough to go visit the finalists' districts--a core piece of a professional search--and report back is really a hallmark for me of the working relationships being established among this Committee, which I'm so grateful to have as a member. 

I have sat in on many votes for superintendent. This is the first time I voted for one. I said what I said about Dr. Monárrez on Thursday, bringing nearly 30 years of my own experience in and around public education to this decision, which, as I said then is "a description of someone who met, in a myriad of ways, exactly what the Worcester School Committee, and, more importantly, the community of the city of Worcester, wants in their next superintendent."

What I heard from across the district both Thursday night and Friday morning was a level of rejoicing I don't know I've ever heard in Worcester. What is most meaningful to me is the number of places where voices that are not accustomed to being heard felt that now, finally, they were. 

I'm very excited about what the new superintendent means for the Worcester Public Schools.
I am also hopeful for the future of my city, given the sort of search that got us here.

Dr. Rachel  Monárrez is our next superintendent, Worcester.
It's up to all of us to make this work. 
Know hope. 

joy cometh in the morning...Psalm 30:5

December 2 meeting

What happened at our December 2 meeting:

• We once again had a thoughtful and insightful report from our student rep ex officio Stacio Zoghbi and South High rep Shelley Duodu. Our student reps are in the midst of collating data from student surveys (if you're a student and haven't yet taken it, please do!), but they did share two concerns that have come to the fore. The first is COVID, and in particular, student concerns that masking isn't being enforced at schools.
  The second was mental health, and I want to quote here part of what they said: 
  

  For those of us who do make it to graduation day, we spend 14 years of our lives in and out of school houses, growing, learning, and hopefully thriving. Yet, for a myriad of reasons and pressures, these places of learning and development are becoming places students dread arriving at. 

  This is not okay. I asked at our last meeting for an URGENT report on student disregulation, and it seems every day we see further evidence of how far afield we are on this issue.
  

• While we did not have a formal report of the superintendent, we did have an update from Superintendent Binienda at the request of Mayor Petty on COVID. DESE met with superintendents earlier this week; they expect an increase in cases between now and the first week of January. That was all that was shared; I don't know if they left it there or have more about it.
  The Committee was asked to vote to extend test and stay to Worcester Public School students who are considered close contacts at an after school program approved by Early Childhood Ed. It is very specifically ONLY that. We did vote all approval.
  We also heard this week's COVID numbers--those are updated on the website here--which is 140 students and 28 staff.
  We requested an update on where we are with vaccinations of students; I'll share that once we get it.

• Mrs. Clancey shared the report from Governance, after which Mr. Monfredo attempted to get passed the original item that had been rejected in subcommittee, a contract that the district would require of all families that would hold them responsible for $300 for a lost or broken Chromebook, $30 for a missing cord, and so forth. This was not moved forward from subcommittee. The subcommittee report moved the financial impact question to Finance and Operations, but did not move the superintendent's recommendation on creating a contract forward, noting that it was covered by our current policies.
  We, the district, have chosen to require these devices for students; students are required to have them; families cannot refuse them, even the three-quarters of our families who are low income.
  The superintendent argued that "kids don't take care of them," and that "we have to instill in kids that they have to take care of them." She said that we were more like a 1 to 3 district; this was later in the discussion contradicted: we are short more like a thousand now, which makes us close to one to one. We also expect to have orders coming in next week.
  If you're interested in watching the discussion, the report starts about 28 minutes into the meeting and goes from there. Mr. Foley noted that talking about about "malicious destruction" is loaded language, and that we have a responsibility as a district, as a one to one district now, to figure out how to make the funding work. Ms. McCullough called attention to the part of the student handbook that includes technology; it was decided that updating that language would be discussed in Governance at the next update. Miss Biancheria strongly noted the burden this requirement would impose on families, speaking of our students getting free breakfast and lunch for a reason, and rejected this as a family's responsibility.
  During the discussion, part of what we discovered was that some--certainly not all, but some--of the Chromebook shortage is artificial; when the new South High opened with Chromebook carts, students there were told that they could simply leave their Chromebooks at home for homework, and use the new ones for schoolwork, all while at least hundreds of other students across the district didn't have Chromebooks at all. The motion which was made on this--which passed, 5-2, Biancheria and Monfredo opposed--was to distribute the resources we currently have to our students as soon as possible. 
  The report of the Governance committee was accepted as presented.
  Later note: If you read the T&G on this, and you can't make the math work from what is said, that is because the math doesn't work: 500 Chromebooks times $300 each doesn't equal a million dollars (it's $150,000), nor does $1 million equal ten teachers, as we don't pay teachers $100,000 each. 

• Annually, the district officially counts our enrollment, and you can find our report for this October 1 on pages 36 to 39 of our agenda. This was sent to Finance and Operations for further discussion, for two reasons: 
  1. this is the best look the School Committee has at how many students are where and how that is changing. This has, of course, facilities implications.
  2. our enrollment is our budget determiner! We are down 250 students from last year. That's a $3.7M loss, per Mr. Allen. Note, further, that because our enrollment did not go back up this year, the $9.7M of ESSER funding that we used as hold harmless funding last year now needs to be...something. Considered? Thus we're starting the FY23 budget deliberation--welcome to the FY23 budget deliberation, by the way!--short $13.4M.
  It's worth noting that we have students who have joined the district since the October 1 count; the Mayor asked for a report on that. As those students are ours but are not yet counted, there was also a motion to bring this to the attention of our state and federal delegation
  

• Mr. Monfredo's item on cursive was sent to Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports.

• Ms. McCullough's item on considering "the use of Fountas and Pinnell Literacy Program in light of recent data" also went to Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports.

• Ms. McCullough's two athletic items went to the respective committees: coach salaries to negotiations and the athletic budget item to budget

• And Mayor Petty announced his appointment of the superintendent search committee, which will conduct the preliminary interviews for superintendent. They are:

Kola Akindele  

Jennifer Davis Carey 

Alex Corrales  

Patty Eppinger  

Lisa Houlihan  

Jermoh Kamara – after being sworn in. 

Laura Maloney 

Roger Nugent  

Joe O’Brien 

Hilda Ramirez 

Laurie Ross, Ph.D. 

Kimberly Salmon 

Ahn Vu Sawyer 

Kay Seale 

Ivonne Perez

Fred Taylor 

Alex Zequeira 

Stacia Zoghbi

Whence sex ed in Worcester?

The article from Scott O'Connell (he did get rather a lot to write about on Thursday) covers the gist of it, but I see that social media has been rather...heated, so I thought it might be useful to sort out a few interconnected things here.
You can't, of course, separate this term's discussion of sex ed from last term's discussion of sex ed, particularly in the context of what Bill Shaner wrote in two articles for Worcester Magazine, one last February and one last April, and which received statewide attention.
At the end of all of that, the vote of the Committee had been to wait on the state. No doubt that was punting, but the state has legitimately been updating the state health standards--which date, incidentally, from the 90's, which is also a problem--as was discussed at the Board of Education in June. However, that report had the new standards out for public comment at the end of last year...and they're not. In fact, the Board hasn't received an update since then.
Thus the Mayor's reaction to their lack of action on Thursday.
I have seen it suggested that the Committee was taking action on Thursday due to the Senate vote in favor of sex ed earlier on Thursday. That doesn't line up.
First, the bill that's being considered only requires "medically accurate and age-appropriate" IF a district offers it at all...which isn't required.
Second, the Senate has taken action on this before:

The legislation now goes to the House, where it has died without a vote each of the past two sessions following Senate approval. House Speaker Robert DeLeo has not committed to taking it up.

This isn't something that is being accelerated by the state, let's say.

It's an authority of the School Committee, incidentally, to review and approve curriculum, so the process here isn't different or somehow set apart. That's done in concert with and generally by recommendation of the professionals involved.

It's in the subcommittee that does curriculum, which is Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports. That's chaired by Ms. McCullough (she finished last year's term after Brian O'Connell's death) and also has Jack Foley and John Monfredo. They do have a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 29 at 4:30 (not 4 as on the website), but I do not know that this will be taken up; I'll post once I see an agenda. UPDATE: Ms. McCullough says that meeting will be taking up items from the prior term; she plans a February meeting on this topic.

How is Worcester handling the April 1 reporting plan under the new funding?

This is from my last updated version of 70 on 70, regarding the required plans.

If you go to about 1: 26 on the video of the Worcester School Committee meeting from Thursday, you can find, first, Superintendent Binienda shares the presentation the urban superintendents received last week from the Commissioner on the reporting requirements under the Student Opportunity Act, and subsequently, the discussion. These came in, mainly, under items from Mayor Petty about process both until April 1 and then afterwards.

Some of this is still being worked out in particulars, but what we do know is:

1. The full School Committee is holding a hearing in each of the four quadrants over the course of February. At the meeting, Mondays (save the Presidents' Day holiday) were mentioned as possible dates, stretching to the first one in March. As yet, we do not have that confirmed, nor do we have locations nailed down but I'll share once we do.
2. Site councils were specifically noted as being integral not only within the act, but also by the state and within the deliberation. Budgetary review is under their purview. 
3. The act also specifically recognizes the Special Education and English Learner Parent Advisory Councils, which were also specifically referenced in the deliberation.

I also added in passing that our student advisory council (we have one! Did you know?) would be an excellent resource for student input, were they willing. 

While the first hearing, if this schedule holds, will be before the next regular meeting, the next regular meeting should have the FY21 budget as the report of the superintendent, and thus will be the next source of good information on specifics of what we can expect for funding. There's also usually at least some initial deliberation around priorities by the Committee.

The Governor's budget is out this coming Wednesday, January 22. 

2020-21 Worcester School Committee assignments

Last night, the (newly sworn-in) Worcester School Committee unanimously voted in Jack Foley as vice-chair for the year of 2020. We also drew for seat assignments, which, if you'll forgive a literal back-of-the-envelope sketch, are like this:

This essentially the view from the gallery.
This also puts me with the reporters directly behind me, FWIW.

Mayor Petty assigns subcommittees, and he has just sent out assignments for the term this morning. They are as follows:

Finance and Operations
Jack Foley-Chair
Molly McCullough-Vice-chair
Dianna Biancheria

Governance and Employee Issues
Laura Clancey-Chair
John Monfredo-Vice-chair
Tracy Novick

School and Student Performance
Tracy Novick-Chair
Dianna Biancheria-Vice-chair
Laura Clancey

Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports
Molly McCullough-Chair
John Monfredo-Vice-chair
Jack Foley

The link, by the way, also gives the Worcester City Council assignments.
Seat assignments don't make a lot of difference, but committee assignments definitely do.

A budget exchange that may matter later

I didn't blog this last night (as I was out of battery), but there was a discussion later in the meeting that may matter later: Mr. Comparetto spoke to his item on the need for wraparound services and staff in every school, and of their being allowed to do their actual job rather than other things. Mr. Monfredo, responding, rather oddly remarked that while the Student Opportunity Act would get the district more money, it wouldn't be enough to get wraparound coordinators in every school.

...er, what? If the School Committee decides that's the most effective way of working on the issue of poverty in the schools, yes, there will absolutely be enough money for wraparound coordinators in every school. That's a pretty out-of-touch remark.

Mr. Foley said that he had been planning to wait to make a motion on the budget until the bill passed (wise), but since it had come up, he made a motion that either the full committee or the Finance and Operations subcommittee plan on holding a public hearing early on regarding use of the funds. Mayor Petty deflected it back to Foley, saying that it should probably be done by the subcommittee.

Miss Biancheria then stood to insist that it had to be done by the full committee, 'though her argument seemed to be about every member being included rather than about, say, public transparency.

I should note that Mr. Foley has brought this up more than once, most recently at the Legislative update held by the Worcester Educational Justice Alliance last week.

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, we are going to need a more thorough and inclusive public budget process, and that was stepped towards last night.

"It's in the report."

As you may have noted, I spend a good bit of my time at public meetings: I go to school committee meetings, I go to Board of Ed meetings, I go to City Council meetings...

In all of those meetings, there is one particular seemingly innocuous phrase that chills me:

"It's in the report."

That's the tip off that someone who was supposed to read something didn't. 

That's the teacher noting that you didn't do your homework. 

That's the public official demonstrating to those paying attention that they have not done their jobs.

Now, those who work on the administrative end of these are generally very good at being politick about this, so you may not hear those words particularly. But listen carefully during deliberations, and you can often tell who has done their homework and who hasn't.

We have had a great deal of demonstration of this during this week in Worcester.

The report, again, is here. And, as Tim Murray, speaking for the Chamber of Commerce, said yesterday, "Candidly, it's a no-brainer."

I have yet to see a question raised that isn't already answered by the report.

If some of us seem somewhat frustrated by this, I would say that's for two reasons:

1. This is a hypothetical issue for every single member of the Committee. Beyond emails, this in no way impacts the daily life of any member. The 13,000 or so Worcester students and their families that depend on Worcester Public Schools transportation do not have that luxury.
2. This has been discussed since 2010. If this is new or seems sudden to you as a member of the public, that's understandable, as most of us don't follow every angle. But if you're a member of this committee suddenly this week calling for more time or greater information? You haven't been doing your job.

I will also say that I have yet to hear anything from any member of this committee about the Nelson Place students, some of whom are non-verbal, who were on Durham buses for hours last Friday, as their parents grew increasingly frantic, getting no response from Durham and eventually calling the police to find their children. If you read the responses--and note that Durham called in their national crisis manager for this--there's a quick exchange of blame between the bus company and the superintendent. We have seen no apology, no explaination, and no assurances that this won't happen again. A promise of a plan by Friday doesn't fix this.

Never mind the next contract: how is it that no one is investigating the appropriateness of continuing the current one? 

The problem those parents had and that Nick D'Andrea speaks of this evening on Worcester News Tonight are not, ultimately, those of "district communication," as I have seen cited. Yes, it will be nice to know precisely where the bus is when it is late; we were supposed to have the app two contracts ago, so no one gets a cookie for finally getting that done. Currently, the WPS Transportation office can't tell us where the bus is, because frequently, Durham hasn't told them that, nor, frequently, has Durham told the schools.
You can take that from someone who has, multiple times, called Transportation, called Durham, called the schools, and called Transportation back again. Guess which places hadn't heard from the third?

Thus it will be difficult to take seriously administrative and school committee concerns around chronic absenteeism or tardiness, when one of the chief culprits is rehired to continue and at a greater rate. 

While I've been experiencing new levels of sealioning in my own comment threads, my sense is that there are some who are legitimately thrown by the idea of having to figure out how much busing is going to cost over several years. Running budgetary projections (luckily) isn't everyone's job. It's not easy (we were trained in it through MASBO). It is, though, a regular part of business--you'll note, for example, that the Chamber isn't thrown off by this--and moreover, it is a regular part of what the school district already has to do: that's what every single year's budget is. If you as a member don't believe these projections, what were you voting this past year's budget based on?
Yes, that budget includes commodities--we heat buildings and run vehicles including buses already--and maintenance and changes in enrollment and all of the things that can also be concerns of busing.

...which makes sense, because the district is running buses already.

This isn't the district "getting into the busing business" any more than the district is in the "restaurant busines" because thousands of children are fed (yes, in house) each day, or getting into the "custodial business" because the buildings get cleaned (yes, by district employees) each day, or getting into the "facilities management business" because the buildings are maintained (yes, by district employees) each day. It is a basic responsbility of the district to transport children to school so they can learn, just as it is a basic responsibility to feed them, to keep the buildings they are in clean and maintained. They can hire employees to do it or companies to do it. Hiring companies to do it, incidentally, is called "privatizing services." It is the district's responsibility just the same.
And right now, it is not happening. 

I thus find it extraordinarily difficult to believe the professed concern of those who have come out with public statements of their positions (in whatever fashion). Posting of your outrage in a comment thread to parents, telling families that they are "heard," and otherwise sending out sentiments means nothing when you're going to vote to continue the same conditions for another two years.

If you review the report, you will find: 

• an "apples to apples" comparison with the Durham contract (p. 2). As noted in the F&O meeting Monday, the district has chosen to move away from diesel, for a cost savings, while Durham is continuing with diesel, which costs more.
• the vehicles being leased to own, including the process and cycle (p. 7, including a link, if you copy the PDF, to a comparative Durham methodology); note that cost is included in the projections and there is still the savings
• where the vehicles would be housed (the School Committee has already voted on this)
• collective bargaining issues (see page 7 and 11)
• the pipeline to driver development (also page 2)

If at this point, you as a member of this Committee are claiming that you don't have enough information or have a need to wait? It isn't due to lack of information, and you had your waiting time. The bid came in in June. 

It's in the report. 

Doherty building meeting

posting as we go; here's hoping the presentation goes up online. Also there is still no posting of who is on the school building committee
preliminary design phase
big emphasis that these are "looking at options"
base options, redesign, new build

Worcester School Committee: Doherty and vocational technical programs

Presentation on Doherty's proposed Chapter 74 programs
enrollment would be 1670 students at Doherty (currently about 1500)
calls for design to be complete in 2021; opening fall 2024
"number of programs would we would like to have"
current building is less than half the size new building is projected to be
community facilities are spread out
hired a consultant for a "public visioning process" (these are the three afternoon sessions that, it was widely observed, were very difficult to get to)
connectng students to outdoors, community, real world connections
strong community use, available to the academic and wider community
the strategic plan calls for greater integration of career pathways
"what is the economic pipeline showing us are job opportunities in the area"
additional 200 students in marketing, management, and finance
200 for programming and web development
200 for construction craft laborer
"reflects the demographics of the city and Doherty Memorial High School in particular"
then advanced academy in biotechnology: admission by test score
academic program has to be submitted to MSBA
Mayor Petty: "I know it's last minute, process has changed"
make it more attractive to that school
once this is done, all secondary schools save Burncoat and UPCS will have been built since 1990
McCullough: different opportunities than anywhere else (the construction craft laborer)
Monfredo asks about programming and web development
meeting workforce needs and interests of students

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

The Worcester School Committee has their single July meeting this Thursday at 4 pm. You can find the agenda here.

For it being a summer agenda, it has some really important items on it (which one fears consequently will not get the attention they deserve). Most notably, Superintendent Binienda, who was evaluated by the School Committee back in December and never then had updated goals, is proposing her goals for I guess? the upcoming year; she also includes her self-evaluation from November; the full committee evaluation is posted at the first link above.
Goals are proposed by the Superintendent, but, just as with any educator evaluation in Massachusetts, are determined by the evaluator, in this case the School Committee. Those who are evaluated under this framework know that goals must be SMART: Specific and Strategic; Measurable; Achievable and Action-oriented; Realistic, Rigorous, and Results-oriented; Trackable and Timed. They also should be tied to the district (in this case) improvement plan and district strategic plan.
The goals proposed by Superintendent Binienda, along with some commentary based on the goals and benchmarks (in the link), are:

• By June 2020, update and utilize the WPS High Quality Teaching and Learning Frameworks to align and increase academic relevance and rigor across all grades. 

Note what this and isn't: this is revising the frameworks by January and then "implementing it" by distributing it. Whatever the relative virtues of revising the benchmarks, there is literally NO implementation strategy or system described. It's this old cartoon in action: 

• By June 2020, implement a comprehensive district-wide approach to monitoring, measuring, and improving student math outcomes.

What's this? New and continued district-level testing: STAR in K-9, enVision in K-6, quarterly "check-ins" in AP math are the first three benchmarks. There is what could be good professional coordination among teachers in the fourth item, but then there's just a new math program at two elementary schools, and then supplemental math for those with special needs.
Look, this isn't even a good goal or strategy if your only focus in on improving MCAS scores (which it pretty clearly is: note that no supplemental testing extends into high school if it isn't AP). As the classic line has it, weighing the pig doesn't make it heavier; if ALL you do is add the assessment, without their being anything beyond "analyzing," you don't FIX anything.

• By June 2020, implement a district technology strategy that prioritizes and supports student learning and achievement through increasing the digital fluency skills of students, staff, and district administration.

There's a nod here, through a survey and then"begin(ning) research on best practices" to the ongoing issue of students simply not having home internet access, despite the push at the secondary level of all work being online. This section looks to me as though it has been written by the department that's been pushing everything online; note the giveaway "advocate" in adding positions: administration doesn't need to advocate, as they create the budget. Most of this is online technology training, with the budgeted switch to third party data management by the end of the school year. The data privacy (which needs to be much more pervasive, incidently) note is good, but this is largely adding positions and training for specific kinds of technology (it's not a coincidence that the keynote speaker for the beginning of school is coming from Google). 

• By June 20202, identify and implement strategies to address social and emotional needs that impact student school performance.

Again, the goal is vague and then the benchmarks go in several different directions. Implementing a multi-tiered system of support was done several years ago (can we check that off or did it fall apart?). While the leadership institute dealing with student discipline could be promising--see here for who is being cited--that isn't supporting this goal, nor is the final item on analyzing disciplinary data. The culturally responsive classroom, likewise, could be useful (why only a handful of schools?), but isn't under this goal and doesn't involve further implementation. The bimonthly series on resilency could be more promising--one off training is notoriously difficult to follow-through on--but is is required of all?

• By June 2020, develop a plan for staff recruitment and retention and implement strategies that will increase access to well-qualified diverse candidates.

Once the Chief Diversity Officer is hired--and note the deadline here of October is well after school starts--and the "Real Talk" network (this is intended to be a group for educators of color, currently being running by the English Learner manager) is expanded (how? by whom?), there are a few concrete items: 29 IAs for licensure, 25 IAs for continuing education. The only difficulty? The administration didn't budget for that, so where is the funding coming from? 

Also, the continued stress on the Worcester Future Teachers' program without supporting data on its relative success (or not) does us all a disservice. 

Note that the goal only "increase(s) access" to candidates; it doesn't actually diversify the teaching corps.

• By June 2020, support the development of advanced and experiential learning opportunities for students to develop intellectual agility, (the ability to think and act well), social acuity (the capacity to communicate well), and personal agency (the ability to know yourself and the capacity to act towards specific ends). 

Someone read a book, I'm guessing? This is mostly specific "we're doing more dual enrollment, innovation pathways" etc catchall for a list. 

There is no goal that focuses on equity of discipline, access, graduation and the like.

There is no goal that pulls out the need for greater work with our English learners, the majority (at one time or another) of our students.

There is no goal that focuses on the over $100M owed by the state to the school district.

There is no capital goal. 

There is no mention of the growing number of schools that have dropped into the bottom 10% of schools in the state. 

We need to focus here.

There is also an update on implementation of the strategic plan, which doesn't seem to interelate with the Superintendent's goals (I also think it is supposed to be in color, if I understand the indicators of tracking correctly.) This probably also warrants its own post; in the meantime, the PowerPoint backup is pretty straightforward. 

There is a report of the Governance committee (on handbook language).

There are responses to FY20 budgetary motions. 

The annual review of innovation school plans (do we know if these are getting funded?) is on the agenda: 

• Chandler Magnet
• Claremont Academy
• Goddard Scholars
• Goodard School
• Woodland Academy
• WEMS
• Worcester Tech
• UPCS

There are three prior fiscal year payments (happy FY20!).

The contracts of both school attorneys are up for renewal (proposed for three years; there is no backup given).

There is a 61 page report on the proposed Chapter 74 (that's vocational) program at Doherty. UPDATE: It was announced tonight that these new programs, which would add substantially to the enrollment at Doherty, are intended as part of the new building, and in fact the new building is being designed in part around these programs.

There is a request for acceptance of donations:

There is a request for acceptance of a career and technical grant for horticulture at Burncoat (why Burncoat? Does it actually involve the greenhouse? These grant backups are so weak). 

There is also request for acceptance of donation of musical instruments from Berklee School of Music. 

Items proposed by members include: 

Ms. McCullough would like to look at pickup and drop off policies. 

Mr. Monfredo wants (again) to know about cursive.

Mr. O'Connell suggests school supplies being used to pay parking tickets as is done in Las Vegas.

Mr. O'Connell asks for coordination around gas leaks (something which adminstration has already been doing for some time). 

Mr. O'Connell wants to offer "training in domestic skills' and personal financial management" through after school and summer programs.
Mr. O'Connell has also submitted the following:

Request that the Administration review “Creating the Will: A Community Roadmap to Achieving Educational Excellence for Latino Students in Worcester,” and to consider both progress made, and topics which require further attention, since issuance of the report in July 2011.

This of course remarkably overlooks that the Mayor's Commission--the group that issued the 2011 report--has been meeting for months and has been asked, at the request of both the Mayor and the School Committee to update the report in August.
More troublingly, that item is cosponsored by Monfredo, McCullough, and Biancheria. This level of disengagement with work on the plurality of students in the district is concerning.
Mr. O'Connell, with the same cosponsorship, also has requested:

interact with the Harvard Teacher Fellows Program, and Teach for America, as to placement of prospective teachers in the Worcester Public Schools.

I hope that I don't need to go into the issues with Teach for America; in any case, I have done so before (Yes, that's from 2012). Also, if one of the concerns of the district rightfully is the diversity of its teaching staff, let's note that TFA's relationship with the diversity of the national teaching corps is 

not supportive. 

There is also an executive session (scheduled for after the meeting) for two grievances and a workers comp case.

Periodic liveblog of the Worcester School Committee meeting

on minutes, including the executive session minutes, as Petty moves to a voice vote, Comparetto objects to the level of detail included, said he had asked about this, and says he hopes they will do better moving forward
the minutes pass as is

new principals are here to be introduced; Comparetto asks why there no longer is a public process; Superintendent says that there was (if there was, the parents weren't informed of it); she also lists why the acting principals are acting principals; in one case, it is a request of the person, in others time

on the Chief Diversity Officer position, the Mayor takes the floor: "a number of school districts are doing this, across the Commonwealth and across the country...and I think people are watching...that's why this has to be done right"
individual report to superintendent, housed in the HR office
"my suggestion is you take out" the requirement for building-based administration, "or maybe move it to preference"
"maybe do this as you do this like principals...just go through the process"
"somehow get the community involved"
NAACP and the Latino community...have some sort of inclusion, diversity, and advisory committee
O'Connell suggests "desired qualifications...to expand the pool of candidates"
"doing that did bring in a good pool of candidates...this is a suggestion for the superintendent to take into account"
suggests adding a paragraph on recruitment
"she can adopt it or not as she sees fit"
Foley: what is the purpose of this job "if you had to summerize in a sentence or two"
Binienda: "purpose is to recruit and retain...particularly teachers and administrators of color"
Foley: intent to make Title IX coordinator?
Binienda: no, Pezzella is Title IX coordinator
HR: "understanding the importance of welcomeness, the importance of tolerance, "the importance of greeting everyone" with welcome will be part of job
Foley: on the front end, rather than processing complaints and going through the process
would concur that "recent building experience [being required]...may not get the pool you want to have...I think it would expand the pool that way" to drop it
"I'm not sure I'd call it a Chief Diversity Officer...I don't see quite the systemic move to change" of that position
this is a recruitment and retention specialist
Comparetto: "did I hear it right that Pezzella is coordinator of Title IX?"
Binienda: yes, he has been trained by legal
Comparetto: Title IX was a follow-up to the civil rights, seems as though someone in that position should have relevant experience
Q: when will this be posted?
HR: if the SC approves the posting tonight, typically posting on Friday
Petty: pay range? based on experience?
it's budgeted for $120K

O'Connell asks that the report from the students regarding teaching diversity be forwarded to them prior to the recognition, noting that it was not
"if it does concern any...practices...we should be moving on" that we could do so
Petty says "let's set the date, anyway"

to a lengthy back and forth that seemed to be based on approval of private schools being not something Miss Biancheria was familiar with (it seemed?), you might read DESE's guidance and also the Worcester Public Schools' policy LBC.

Elbows

"Elbows: the most important weapon in a politician's armoury."

from Yes, Minister

In the past several months, the Worcester School Committee has recognized or honored:

• the winners of Worcester Regional Middle School (grades 6-8) Science and Engineering Contest at WPI 
• the seniors who have been awarded the state Seal of Biliteracy
• students for "exemplifying behaviors that meet the Core Values at the Goddard School of Science and Technology as part of their turnaround process." 
• a South Central Noonan Scholar
• the Doherty Memorial High Powerlifting team
• an International All-Women's Choir member

...and I could go on.

The science fair winners did not have their projects reviewed by the School Committee prior to their being honored. The Seal of Biliteracy seniors did not have their language skills checked by the School Committee prior to their being recognized. The students with exemplary behavior, the athletes, the vocalist...none had the skills or performances for which they were being honored checked the the School Committee prior to their being recognized.

Thus Scott O'Connell is right to remark on the highly unusual hold Mr. O'Connell requested be placed on the item to honor student researchers who presented at Harvard. He has insisted--and the committee agreed, as the Worcester School Committee does not have a personal hold--that the research be given to the Committee first.

This is the research that students did outside of school on their own time and presented first at the Mayor's Commission on Latino Educational Advancement regarding student perspectives on teaching. These same students, based on the way their presentation and they themselves were treated at that meeting and subsequently by the superintendent and other administrators, then called for her resignation. 

That's the first indication that this is not about the research.

The second indication is that this research was presented to the Mayor's Commission months ago and has been in the news consistently since. If Mr. O'Connell and other members of the committee were as interested in teacher diversity as their introductory remarks in the budget hearing claimed, they would of course wish to have read it. They have had ample opportunity to do so. 

Worcester Public Schools FY20 budget deliberations round one

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

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday: BUDGET TIME!

The Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday this week: NOTE THAT THE BUDGET SECTION STARTS AT 4 PM!
And yes, there's a budget post coming next.

The executive session for a single grievance is scheduled for 6; the regular session is scheduled for 7.

Let me start by highlighting three things on here that I think are of general interest:

• the administration is recommending the hiring pro bono save expenses (which makes me a little nervous) Michael P. Angelini and others at Bowditch and Dewey for a lawsuit against the state on the Foundation budget.  

• the Chief Diversity Officer position was held from the prior meeting due, it seemed, to dissatisfaction with the job description, as I described here; note further that it also requires building administrator experience, which is not all that relevant. The position description posted for this week's meeting is the same. Further, the item is phrased "for informational purposes," which is something I would hope the School Committee rejects. It is a new position; it requires School Committee approval.

• Mayor Petty has the following item:  

Request that the Administration invite representatives from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Center for District Support to make a presentation on the district’s accountability and disciplinary data.

This is a natural reaction to the superintendent's ongoing claims about what "DESE says." Naturally, one wonders, what does DESE say? This would clear that up nicely.
Let's be clear: either Superintendent Binienda embraces this, as what she's been saying will be backed up, or she rejects it, leading...to the opposite conclusion.

I see this of a piece with the Mayor's item following this, in which he asks for all communication that the district has with DESE be sent also to the School Committee. While I hesitate to call anything impossible, do know that districts have ongoing daily communication with DESE, some of which is done automatically through data systems; this isn't about cc'ing the School Committee in on a few emails. Narrowing the scope of this to items of concern (which is too vague...let me think about that some more) such that the School Committee is getting things that are flagged would make this possible and perhaps even useful.
Of course, starting with the actual accountability data from the fall by itself would be a good start.

Okay, the rest of the agenda: along with the usual rounds of recognitions and thanks, there is no report of the Superintendent.

There are two subcommittees reporting out: Governance, which it appears was entirely about the procedure for homeschooling, and Finance and Operations, which included the annual audits and the third quarter report. Never take for granted a solid audit, which these are.

There are some resignations and appointments.

There is a report on the One City, One Library system which disappointingly opens by focusing on third grade reading scores as a goal, but has some good thinking on challenges and what might be good to work on.  

There is a response to a request for information on immunizations. 

The School Committee will get a presentation from Tobacco Free Massachusetts in the fall.

The overdue update on due process in the handbook is on the agenda.

Flagg Street parents want a pathway to the school from St. Paul Drive; one should note that there are many, many schools in the city that would benefit from such connections. 

There's the annual "we're going to need to close the fiscal year" item.

There is a request for reception of a summer learning grant ($43,620) for Worcester East Middle.
Mr. Monfredo wants to add broadcast journalism or video production (perhaps one could point to the media arts program at Burncoat?).
There is a request to consider the siting of a new Doherty (not suprising but also not entirely under school committee purview).
And City Solicitor David Moore has reviewed the Open Meeting Law complaint dealing with Mr. Monfredo's collecting of signatures for an advertisement supporting an extension of Superintendent Binienda's contract and does not believe the Committee to be in violation. 

Worcester Public Schools before City Council for FY20: laterblog

When the Worcester Public Schools goes before the Worcester City Council on the budget--or when any school district goes before their appropriating authority--I always find it is useful to start with MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34:

In acting on appropriations for educational costs, the city or town appropriating body shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restrictions on such appropriations.

Further, in Worcester, we do well to note that by section 5-2 of the City of Worcester Charter:

The city council may, by majority vote, make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget, but except on recommendation of the city manager, shall not increase any amount in or the total of the annual budget, nor add thereto any amount for a purpose not included therein, except as provided in section thirty-three of chapter forty-four of the General Laws.

Thus the City Council:

• cannot add more money to the city budget (including the schools)
• cannot transfer money to or from any section of the budget (including schools)
• cannot allocate funds within the school budget

As I already noted, the City is also running very close to the line in terms of required spending, thus they don't have a great deal of ability to even cut.

Nonetheless, the City Council spent more than three hours questioning Superintendent Binienda and Mr. Allen on the FY20 budget on Tuesday night (you can find the videos on Facebook here and here), only to hold the item for next week. It is, of course, an election year, but I've also noticed that municipal bodies tend to edge more and more into schools when they can, either because they aren't getting pushback or they aren't seeing the school committee as doing its own oversight.
Note also that this was covered only by Bill Shaner of Worcester Magazine, which is really a problem. This is not a blow-by-blow liveblog, but I felt we needed to say more about this.

And what is going on in Worcester?

My NSFW title for this could be what I was asked by a friend I hadn't seen in awhile that I ran into downtown yesterday: 'What the * is going on with Worcester School Committee?!?"


After a three hour executive session during an off-week meeting, the Worcester School Committee on Thursday night voted 5-2 to grant Maureen Binienda a three year contract at $215,000 a year, with a 2% raise each year, Comparetto and Foley opposed. Further details of the contract have not been released (though it is a public document).
Incidentally, I've requested that the minutes of all executive sessions regarding this negotiation be released, as the reason for the executive session is now complete; the school department has 10 days to respond and 30 days to release them.

There is, of course, much more that has been going this week than that.

• An Open Meeting Law complaint was filed against the Committee for communications regarding the ad in support of Ms. Binienda's contract renewal at three years. The email gathering signatures was sent out by John Monfredo, three members of the Committee signed the ad, and it is known that at least one other received it. It was also circulated to staff of the Worcester Public Schools. 
• I heard (yes, this is literally hearsay) multiple reports of teachers being asked by principals to sign the letter of support of the superintendent. The just-re-elected head of the teachers' union Roger Nugent was also collecting signatures in support of the superintendent. 
• There were, it seems, ongoing meetings with community activists over the course of the week with the Mayor and the Superintendent around the list of action items Mayor Petty has put forward. The discussion, it appears, was around putting those into her contract, or otherwise tying the renewal to those issues. While the Mayor did again read those items at Thursday's meeting and I am told the Committee voted in favor of them, it does not appear those are in her contract, nor that they were issued as goals or otherwise formally part of her evaluation. The Committee has not created new goals for the superintendent since her evaluation in December. Superintendents in Massachusetts have a mid-cycle review halfway through the year, which on this schedule should be taking place around June. 
• There were activists on both sides of the contract renewal at Thursday's meeting; Bill Shaner noted the demographic divide. There were also seven police officers, which is unusual. 
• While committees can and do have who they like in their executive sessions when it comes to staff, it is worth noting that School Safety Manager Rob Pezzella was in the mayor’s office at one point. 
• The Teamsters, who organize the bus drivers who work for Durham, were among those present at the meeting on Thursday; the superintendent has made her support for continuing to work with Durham clear, even as there are continued issues with Durham's service for the Worcester Public Schools. 
• While the vote was 5-2, the Mayor's vote in favor was tempered with a significant amount of critique which extended beyond the issues around disciplinary disparities recently discussed into the bussing contract, the district's lack of a health curriculum, and others. 
• Dante Comparetto released a statement Friday, saying that while he will finish his term (it runs until December), he will no longer be running for re-election due to this vote. Nomination papers for School Committee (300 signatures of registered Worcester voters are needed) are due this coming Tuesday, so it appears unlikely this will add people to the race. This does leave an open seat on the Committee, and I believe means the School Committee will not have a preliminary election in September. 

Mayoral Commission hearing on Latino education and advancement next Thursday in Worcester

Mayoral Commission on Latino education and advancement invites you to a community discussion on Latino families in Worcester
All community members are invited!
May 16, 2019
4:30 pm
Rock of Salvation Church, 829 Main Street, Worcester, MA
Refreshments and Spanish interpreting will be provided.
For more information, email equityinworcester at gmail.com or call 508-798-6508

I'm told the flyer is coming out in Spanish today; I'll share once I have it.