There's more than miles between us and a new set of graduation standards

 (the above is an adaptation of a line from Lil' Abner that I cannot now find anywhere online)

As a blogger who started writing out of sheer frustration with local school district governance coverage, I have a certain amount of weary understanding of the misses that happen. This is particularly true given the undercutting of the Fourth Estate and the seemingly endless churn of local reporters (when we have them at all!) for local news coverage. 

I nonetheless was puzzled by coverage of the October 8 Worcester School Committee meeting, which appeared to take as given that the graduation report from last year was moving forward into implementation.

As we have discussed here before, more than once, this is not the case. The Department does not have the authority to create new required graduation standards. The authority to determine what a student needs to graduate remains with local school committees. The competency determination, as bound by the amended law under Question 2, is within the Department's authority, and districts now all have policies that align to that. That is, though, the full extend of the authority of the Department.

Now, I'm pretty sure--I think?--that those running things here in Worcester know that, but I remain concerned that some writing for the Department might not. Recently, every superintendent received a communication from DESE that gave a deadline of late November for a report on where individual high schools were on their graduation requirements relating to the graduation report. It referred to this Companion Guide for information. 

And nowhere in any of this was there any mention of the fact that the Department cannot simply implement the graduation report, lacking utterly the authority to do so. It takes the graduation report as something that is being implemented, and this, despite the report itself--though only v-e-r-y subtly!--noting that the Legislature would need to act for implementation.

And if you think the Legislature is simply going to pass the graduation report as issued into legislation, well, I wouldn't advise putting money on that. 

While I have come to expect this sort of confusion of local reporters who often just got there, I am troubled to see it from the regulatory agency. 

UPDATE: The backup for Tuesday's Board of Ed meeting now has this memo, which continues the "the report is a recommendation which we are working to implement" without mention of the Department not having the authority to do so. 

Worcester parents, CPPAC is meeting

First meeting: October 6, Fanning Building, 24 Chatham Street

CPPAC is the Citywide Parent Planning Advisory Council, run by parents for parents; by charter (and by theory), they have representation from every school in the city. 

 They are not, unlike some other options in Worcester, selected by administration, nor is the agenda set by anyone other than those gathering. Their first meeting will be "to review the mission of CPPAC, introduce the new executive board members, and come together as a community to identify our priorities and goals for this school year. We need caregiver involvement to ensure that CPPAC is the powerful agent for advocacy that it can be, so we hope to see you there."

While it has had its highs and lows of effectiveness, I recommend attending. Per the invite:

Interpretation services will be provided in Spanish and Portuguese, childcare is available, and pizza will be served! If you need interpretation services in languages other than Spanish and Portuguese, please let us know by Friday, October 2nd, 2026. 

Feedback on the WPS rezoning

Submitted this evening to alignment@worcesterschools.net

I went to the most recent meeting

Thank you for providing a method for feedback for the proposals for rezoning the Worcester Public Schools.
Because I have been following this process entirely through the printed reports, I assumed that I was simply missing the place that the foundational data for decision-making, that of demographic changes proposed, were being shared. I attended this past week's subcommittee meeting in expectation of seeing what had, at least, changed for that between proposals one and two.
Nothing of the kind was shared, and, I found from asking after the meeting, nothing of the kind has been requested by the district.

On the FY27 Worcester Public Schools budget

This is--mostly--my testimony from tonight's budget hearing. They were sticking to two minutes per person, so I did some condensing on the fly. Full video of the hearing is now posted here; you can watch my testimony at this point.

I have three points for you this evening:

1. This budget is balanced on our most needy students. The program closures proposed--and they are proposed, only--for your consideration serve the students we bear the most responsibility to serve and serve well. The budget document itself notes it, as the executive summary lists these program closures, and only these, as how the budget has been balanced.

not reading the room

 The thing is: having more people trained by a corporation in using that corporation's product is not actually a thing to brag about.

where's the plan for FY28 and beyond?

 I broke with my usual tradition of turning first to the net school spending page* when cracking open** the FY27 Worcester Public Schools recommended budget, because, as I've been noting, the looming end of the Student Opportunity Act implementation is high on my concerns. Worcester, as part of adhering to the requirements of the Meritorious Budget Award, does a projection of three years forward. That's on page 32 of the PDF, and it looks like this: 

That's a $7.9M gap next year, rising to $20.2M in FY30.

This problem is not the Worcester Public Schools' nor the city of Worcester's to solve. The requirement to ensure children have a public education belongs to the Commonwealth.

_______________________________________________

*Net school spending is on page 386 of the PDF and, I am somewhat stunned to find that the city is projected to meet required spending. That's at least in part because cityside claims for school services continue to rise (it's over $10M just for administration for FY27) and because WPS transportation is holding down non-net school spending costs.

Nonetheless, that's a positive number at bottom right.

**metaphorically; one does not crack open a PDF.

I literally have done nothing else with this book other than check those two pages, but the flip through shows another year of a tour de force, so congratulations to Sara Consalvo on heading up what I know to be a massive effort for her first time! 

Watching the upcoming Worcester budget: early announcement

 If my calendar does not deceive me, the Worcester Public Schools will release their proposed FY27 budget on Friday, but we're getting an early warning via press release of something of what's in it. The Patch does their best with it here.

The Academic Center for Transition (ACT), which serves 59 elementary students in grades K-6 with individualized education plans (IEPs), will close in June. Students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Collaborative’s Hartwell Learning Center, located in the same building at 14 New Bond St. District officials said the Collaborative has agreed to accept all ACT students and keep them in their current classroom spaces.

The Worcester Alternative School, a therapeutic program for 36 high school students with IEPs, will also close at the end of the school year. Those students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Academy, also operated by the Collaborative at the New Bond Street location. Some students may also be placed in other district programs.

The New Citizens Center Secondary Program, which serves 37 English learner students ages 12 to 17 with limited or interrupted formal education, will not close but will move out of its standalone building at 1407A Main St. Students and staff will transition into Worcester middle and high schools.

We then get some paragraphs about increased opportunities and etc, but it's also clear that this is a budgetary decision.

Once we've waded through the spin*, to make clear what's happening here: that's the district closing two in-district special education programs, and moving those students out of district to the Collaborative. I do not know if that will actually better serve the students; that is not something I could know. I do think it for sure should raise least restrictive environment flags, as well as always the question of who we're saving our money on.

The students at New Citizens--properly, Caradonio New Citizens Center, as it was named after the former superintendent in tribute to his experience with and attention to students for whom English was a second or later language--being moved into their home (one assumes?) middle and high schools raises both the question as to how the program isn't then closing, and also if the building is remaining open and used as a school. Historically, the way in which Worcester treated with particular care their students with interrupted formal education was one of the prides of the district.

We'll be able, one assumes, to see the money saved--which I would also assume is being reallocated--in the budget this weekend. 

This goat's "what's happening here?" is my question as well.

*the degree with which every piece of information from WPS in recent months has a lot of words to try to impress us with how this is a great, amazing decision, rather than just telling us what is happening has me at the end of my patience, even more so when I reflect that we are paying for that

paying attention to dual language in Worcester

 I've only occasionally been paying attention to what's going on with the Worcester Public Schools¹, but a sequence over the past week has me paying attention. 

Samuel Adams in the U.S. Capitol
Because I am feeling a lot like that about this.

One of the things that is very close to my heart, both personally and professionally, is Worcester's dual language program. Over my transom last week came the following message that had gone to parents in the dual language program: 

point five, Worcester

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

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

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

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

Worcester School Committee starts talking about FY27

I'm not able to attend this evening--training another committee!--but I did want to note that the Worcester School Committee is receiving their first look at FY27 (next school year's budget) at tonight's meeting. You can find the presentation here. 

This has now become when we also get the first look at the cover art of the budget book, which I always appreciate: 

enjoying the spooky overtones here; are we foreshadowing FY28?

What are we doing here, Worcester?

 I am of course posting this after the Worcester School Committee meeting at which this was discussed. This is partly because this isn't intended as anything other than my thoughts, but it's also rather been a bleak week. It's a hard week to pull together the through line to write. 

On the eve of Worcester's municipal election

On this eve of Worcester's municipal election, I offer the following thoughts, while looking back to what I wrote almost two years ago about the Worcester School Committee, though this is as much about Worcester City Council as it is about the Committee.

Please enjoy this fun "winter is coming" view
of Cannon Mountain last weekend.

Dearest Legislators: on the charter reimbursement override

Dearest Legislators,

It has come to my attention that you plan to override Governor Healey's July veto of nearly $20M in charter school tuition reimbursement. As this represents millions of dollars to some of the most needy districts in the state¹, this is very helpful. Thank you!

Many of you are no doubt under the impression that this money goes, as is intended by state law, to the school districts themselves. This is, however, is the case only for regional school districts. For municipal school districts, because charter school tuition reimbursement isn't designated as going to schools "without additional appropriation," the money goes to the city or town general fund.

Cities and towns have long since passed their budgets. Unless someone takes additional action, these funds you intend for schools will not go to schools.

Were it possible for you to pass these funds with language so designating them, that would be most useful. 

If not, perhaps you could ensure that the Department of Revenue generates updated cherry sheets, and you could ensure the cities and towns in your districts are aware of where the money should go?

With very sincere thanks,

Someone who wants to ensure the Worcester Public Schools gets their $2M

¹As a reminder, here are all the amounts over $1M:

Considerations for Worcester's fall election

Because we have our preliminary election approaching, I offer the following considerations I am using in making my decisions over whom I vote for.

As always, these are my thoughts as an individual Worcester voter.

1. No fascists.
   As with many other terms of specific historical "bad guys," this is one that has become an insult flung at those with whom one disagrees. That isn't what I mean when I use it. I'm using here the definition shared by the American Library Association in their "Making Sense of Current Events" presentation.
   

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints, goals of internal cleansing and external expansion” (Paxton, 2004, p. 218)

While I've seen this less markedly in the campaign materials I've seen, the "preoccupation with community decline" certainly is something that comes through with some.

2. If they've been in office either this past term or before, and they didn't actually do the job--didn't review the agenda for meetings, didn't pay attention in meetings, didn't schedule or attend subcommittee meetings--no, thank you.

3.Whether or not they've served in the role for which they're running, if they make it apparent that they haven't the faintest idea what, by state law and municipal charter, their job actually is, I'm not interested.

This rather narrows the field. 

____
PS: If you leave a flyer on my mailbox that says "Sorry we missed you!" and I have been home all day, you really, really don't get a vote from me. 

and because this year's WPS budget book has a snail...

 

WPS FY26 proposed budget is posted

It can be found here.
Please enjoy the snail* on the cover, the work of Worcester Arts Magnet student Miguel Andrade.

and despite the cover: it's always only a proposed budget
until the School Committee takes action on it

I'll see if I can post a bit more once I get to it, but to follow up on my posts earlier this week, if you turn to page 376 (381 in the online edition), you will find, indeed:

...the city is projected to be $1,793,310 short of its minimum required contribution to schools next year. 

The standard calculation done for every city and town in Massachusetts can be found on page 373 (online 378).

______________________________________

*Yes, this does mean BUDGET FISH has been replaced by BUDGET SNAIL and I think I may need to start making references to the speed with which the city of Worcester is getting to required spending. 

It isn't, of course, the snail's fault. He seems a cheerful sort, clearly making the best of things.

Because I know another person saying something matters

 I posted this last night on the microblogging sites:

[I s]pent the afternoon and evening literally in a granite valley, but while I was gone, it seems my city’s police “kept the peace” by arresting a 17 year old who was attempting to keep her mother from being kidnapped by federal agents who refused to show any paperwork?

A couple blocks over from Eureka was my first home in Worcester. 

We brought two babies home from the hospital there.

I’ve pushed strollers across Eureka Street and carried groceries across it.

That our—are they “our”?—police would think the appropriate response to a grieving and rightly angry child is arrest maddeningly is not surprising, but it is sickening.

And if we have people being taken off the street by people refusing to identify themselves who are not wearing uniforms and who do not have papers showing they have authority to do so, the local police response should not be “they’re federal”

Anyone can claim anything now.

City of Worcester tells us ahead of time

In City Manager Batista's letter opening the FY26 city budget document, there's sentence I haven't seen in a city budget document before:

Despite the increases, the proposed FY26 education budget, built based on long-standing City and WPS practice of determining education contributions, may not achieve net school spending depending on the final State budget and final WPS expenditures.

 I am not sure how much credit to give for acknowledging it up front rather than letting us wait a few days to find out from the schools' budget.

As a reminder, net school spending is REQUIRED (in fact, I generally call it "required net school spending") by Massachusetts General Law chapter 70. It isn't optional; it isn't a nice thing to do; it is done by nearly every single city and town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts every single dang year without a blink.

If your "long-standing...practice of determining education contributions" is (I'm going to be blunt here) breaking state law, your practice should be re-determined.

Insert levels of exhaustion here. 

UPDATE: which I said tonight at Council, about 12 minutes in.

On Worcester's next superintendent

 I have the English major habit of, when I cannot find the best words myself, quoting those who put it better. 
I could not think more highly of Brian Allen, who the Worcester School Committee voted (8-1) to make the next superintendent of schools. I give you, thus, a passage from Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons about Sir Thomas More.

Margaret: In a State that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here, for what you've done already. It's not your fault the State's three-quarters bad. Then if you elect to suffer for it, you elect yourself a hero.

More: That's very neat. But look now … If we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we'd live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all … why then perhaps we must stand fast a little--even at the risk of being heroes.

T&G coverage here; MassLive here; WGBH here

FAQ on superintendents in Massachusetts: round two

 It's probably "round too many to count" but it's round two recently. 

UPDATE: MassLive notes that Worcester could have a next superintendent by the end of the day.

Do superintendents have to already have their superintendent’s licensure to be appointed superintendent?

No. They should be eligible for licensure, but they don’t have to already have the license. Depending on what licensure they already have, it can be a fairly straightforward process to get the superintendent’s license, particularly if they already have an administrator level license (passing the MTEL* if they haven’t; attesting the experience already completed, or completing the experience).

Massachusetts educator licensure, by the way, is a publicly accessible system found online here. 

So there is an experience requirement for a superintendent’s license?

Yes. Many of us are familiar with student teaching, which is the equivalent experience for teaching. For an administrative license, the state requires either (this is straight from DESE):

• equivalent or internship of 300 hours in the role of Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent

  
  

  
  

  
  

   -or-

  
  

  
  

  
  

   
• Completion of three full years of employment under a valid Massachusetts administrator license

  
  

You may note that this doesn’t require teaching experience. The reflexive requirement of teaching experience is how we have ended up with these former Teach for America “I did my two years in the Bronx” types being put forward for administrative posts when they have no significant experience in public education nor any particular value for or of it. Beware of check box requirements like these. 

Can the Committee wait to appoint a superintendent?

Ideally, no, as transition time is very much a best practice (as I’ve already noted, that is why you see searches wrapping up now). Additionally, if past practice holds, the School Committee will be getting the FY26 budget next week, and one would hope that the Committee would ensure they’re ready to move on to that.

Regardless, there must be a superintendent in place July 1.

I will update if I see more to answer.

________________________________________
*The MTEL is the test (or set of tests, really) that are taking by all those pursuing any educator licensure in Massachusetts; it has been required since 1998. Any of us with licenses earned before 1998 did not take the MTEL to get them; if we pursue additional licenses, we then have to take the MTEL as part of it.
There isn't a different test for a superintendent; it is the Communication MTEL, which is required of all educators, that those pursuing any new administrator license must take.