When the paper of record is wrong

Headline of Friday's Worcester Telegram and Gazette 

with top headline "Speaking out on schools' needs"

We had the public hearing on the proposed FY23 Worcester Public Schools budget on Wednesday, and we had people COME which is always the first thing, and so we heard from parents, a student, and multiple staff about what we should be considering about the budget as we enter deliberations next week. 

As some of you know, this blog started because I was frustrated by the holes in the Telegram's coverage around budget in particularly, and so it feels either full circle or something more frustrating to note that the article gets what seems to me to be one of the core pieces of information--how much our budget is--wrong.

The third paragraph in piece says this: 

Two weeks ago the school department released its fiscal 2023 budget proposal, a $448.7 million plan that represents a $30.5 million, or 7.3%, bump up from the current fiscal year. That increase is driven in part by a $18 million increase in the inflation factor of the state’s school funding formula and a $13.2 million increase in funding from the Student Opportunity Act, which is giving significant state aid to Worcester and other Massachusetts school systems over the next few years. 

One of the things I take some pride in is that I spend time and attention to the budget (in fact, I'm writing this with budget materials spread around me, as it's how I'll spend yet more time today). I generally know pretty solidly what our numbers are. 
These I not only did not recognize: when I went back to our budget, I couldn't even figure out quickly where they were even coming from! The opening sentence of the executive summary of the budget is:

The fiscal year 2023 budget represents total spending for the Worcester Public Schools from all sources of $523,662,716, a $44.1 million, or a 9.2% increase from the adopted FY22 budget level of $479,522,996. Within this amount, the total general fund budget by the City Manager is $417,802,152, which represents an increase of $29.3 million, or a 7.6% increase from the FY22 School Committee's adopted budget of $388,472,088. 

I even went back to last year's budget to see if it was from there (it isn't).

When I pulled open my copy of the presentation by Mr. Allen from that night, I finally found it: slide 7:

Here's the problem: That's literally midway through the calculation to get us to our bottom line: 

The $448M is just...not the Worcester Public Schools' budget for FY23. It's not. At all.

That isn't, of course, the main point of the article, which is about some of the public testimony we received, particularly on student mental health and on pay for paraprofessionals. 

But facts matter. And it isn't my blog that's going to go forward as the record of what happened; it's the T&G.

This is a proposed budget in which total spending reaches over $500M for the first time in Worcester history. A substantial amount of that--$50.8M--is one time funding from ESSER, that either goes away or is proposed to transition into our Student Opportunity Act spending as it phases in over the next few years.

That also matters. It's core to budgeting in future years. People in Worcester need to have some understanding of that.

I am always going to recommend that you review the executive summary; it not only talks about where our money comes from, but where it is proposed to go. I hope to put something up here that talks a bit more about that; frankly, I'm still wrapping my own head around if it's doing what we need it to. If you need the proposal in one image, Mr. Allen has given you one:

But again...facts matter.

Speaking of local news coverage

I started live-blogging Worcester School Committee meetings in 2008, because the Telegram and Gazette, while always there and always writing, could only devote so much space to a meeting. From my perspective, 'though still limited, recently the coverage of meetings beyond Worcester (and beyond Council) has improved.
That's why the loss this week of 1/5 of their staff, and the conclusion drawn by WBUR on what it will mean, really hits home:

In a press release gussied it up to look like a news story, Redding said, “This will not impact our news coverage in any way.” 

This is like your favorite local restaurant laying off a fifth of its wait staff and reassuring you service won’t be affected in the least.

Of course the layoffs at the Telegram will “impact” the paper’s news coverage significantly and in the most basic way: There will be far less quality local news in the Worcester Telegram.

 I quoted Madison earlier this week, because it's no exaggeration to say that our government was put together with newspapers in mind. A free press is in the First Amendment; the power of the press was brought to bear in the times leading up to the American Revolution, and those who then went on to set up the government clearly saw the press as a necessary balance to government power. Clearly that's something we need on a national level, but for any local government to lack a press check on what they do weakens the ways in which it answers to the people it serves. We need press not only to report on who says what and votes which way, but to ask why and what for.
I am very, very concerned about this, not only for Worcester, but for our surrounding communities.

Foley on the T&G editorial

Foley points out that the T&G editorial board would fail the MCAS writing portion 
"tracking this very carefully"
"stimulus funds were meant to level of the funding...when the economy fell apart"
"we've been tracking this thing very carefully"
runs through the federal numbers..."to keep our schools from falling apart"
"saving jobs is not bad...means that children in the classroom are receiving instruction"
"insulting comment to make for those of us in the school district"
"targeted nearly $40 million over the next five years"
"the stimulus money that we've had has gone directly into the classroom"

The mayor applauds Mr. Foley's comments.