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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: When this was asked during the budget deliberation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That report is back for Thursday's meeting: 

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

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

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

April 4 meeting of the Worcester School Committee

Please enjoy these daffodils from my walk from work in Boston.

While school in Worcester was cancelled, the meeting was not; my meeting was, so I got to this one in person to find that the balcony now has some who are interested in good governance of the district attending in person to keep an eye on things. Excellent. Let me know if you're coming; I'm bringing snacks. 

The agenda is here. The video of the meeting is here. 

March 7 meeting of the Worcester School Committee

 The agenda is here. The report of the superintendent is here. The video of the meeting is here.

The National Anthem was sung by City View Elementary School's chorus.

The consent agenda passed as proposed.

The second Worcester School Committee meeting of the term

 ...and if I let these get too far away from me, we'll never catch up!

The agenda is here; the video is here.

Please note the important takeaways from the FY25 budget presentation here. I managed to catch just the second half of WEC's FY25 forum this past week, in which Mr. Allen replicated his presentation, and I was concerned that the questions didn't seem to be those stemming from a $22M budget gap. Let's start to get ourselves into that mode, folks. 

And as a reminder, here's the advocacy at the state level: 

Four takeaways and three footnotes from the preliminary FY25 Worcester Public Schools budget presentation

with thanks to Roosevelt K-1 student Arlo Frutaan for the rueful budget fish
and to Mr. Allen for selecting it for this year's budget

The presentation shared is here, and you can watch the video of that section here:

We can go into this in greater depth as the year goes along, but here's a big four plus three footnotes:

A quick note on Thursday's upcoming Worcester School Committee

With the agenda for Thursday's Worcester School Committee meeting now posted, it seems we may need a quick explainer on a Worcester (it's part of Plan E) process, as Member Maureen Binienda has filed for reconsideration of the motion to allow students to march in graduation who have yet to complete 2 credits or fewer, a vote which she lost at the last meeting, 8-1.
I wrote about this back in 2014, but let's walk through how this works for this upcoming meeting.

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. 

WPS budget is posted!

 And it's the first time the announcement has come this way!

FY17 @worcesterpublic budget now available for review at https://t.co/Q7K4ZDFhUI pic.twitter.com/W2Dj8NL90f

— Brian Allen (@Brian_E_Allen) May 13, 2016

The link in the tweet works; the budget is here. 

Here's the opening paragraph:

The Worcester Public Schools is underfunded in the current foundation budget formula in the areas of health insurance, special education, and the skipped inflation adjustment in 2010. The district enrollment is relatively flat from the previous year causing no foundation budget growth due to enrollment. The foundation budget inflation factor is negative for only the second time in twenty-four years causing no increases in Chapter 70 foundation aid. The Governor’s and House of Representative’s proposed budgets provide additional funding for a change in the definition of low income and economically disadvantaged resulting in the total of the district’s Chapter 70 aid increase of $3.8 million. 

I think that may be the darkest opening paragraph I've read in a budget (and I've read them back into the 90's). We did know that this was coming.

For those who were laying odds, Superintendent-elect Binienda's name is on the budget.While there may as yet be no agreed-upon contract, the superintendent's salary is budgeted for $200,000. That's an increase of $6000 over Dr. Boone's final salary last year, which is interesting, given that the incoming superintendent has no experience and no terminal degree.

The following major points jumped out at me just from skimming (per my open questions):

• the administrative restructuring drops three positions, due to retirements, and adds two positions: a Manager of Curriculum and Learning, to whom the curriculum liaisons will report, and a Manager of Instruction and School Leadership, to which (if I'm reading the org chart correctly) the current Quadrant Managers will be also changed, making two for elementary and one for secondary. Budgetarily, it's a bit of a savings, due to the length of service of those retiring this year
• the secondary cuts came in at nine positions with, the budget says, no change in course offerings. The changes are as follows: no changes at UPCS or Forest Grove. Burncoat: up a history, down a language, up a science thus +1; Claremont: down a special ed thus -1; Doherty: down a science thus -1; North: down a history, a language, a health thus -3; South: down an English, a math, a language thus -3; Tech up a .4 language thus +.4; Burncoat Middle: down a math thus -1; Sullivan down an English, a math, a language thus -3; WEMS down a math thus -1. And that may be missing a half I missed somewhere. I haven't done the elementary; those are supposed to net out to zero change over the district, but there will be school by school changes.
• Elementary class sizes will, as projected, have 72 classrooms of 26 or more students.
• Dual language increases to sixth grade.
• No increase in support staff
• Overall, there is a drop of 4 special education teachers.
• There is a cut of three preschool classes; I didn't check the school by school budgets to see where yet; I'll update once I do.
• Alarmingly, Mr. Allen is projecting charter school reimbursement at 36%. Remember, that's based on the House budget, which cut the charter reimbursement from Governor Baker's budget, while not tying it in the same knots.
• The IB coordinator for the planned Advanced Academy is still there. 
• Per pupil instructional materials is still being funded at $68/pupil with $1/pupil for recess in elementary schools.
• Security guards are still being funded, and there's a 20% increase in that line item.
• There's an increase of over $100,000 in the rental line item, due to the increased rental of space at the Y for Chandler Elementary, since the building plan was nixed.
• While the overall regular transportation budget is only increasing by 1%, due to the capital budget from the city continuing to be level-funded, the district cannot replace district-owned school buses at the rate needed. The district thus is renting three more special education buses than last year. And, as the capital budget is again level-funded this year, expect that to go up again and again. 
• Health insurance is going up by 6%.
• Workers' comp looks like it's probably still underfunded by about $300,000.
• Facilities remains, with exception of trash, level funded, which it's been since the beginning of time...
• In about the only bright spot in the budget, the school nutrition budget is going up for next year by about an overall 15%, due both to increase reimbursement and to increase participation. That would be Community Eligibility working! 

AND the mysterious increase in FY16 funding? Check out the city contribution schedule on page 406 (of the online PDF): you can click to make this bigger; I've got to change the margins on postings...

The big change last year was, indeed, the police being added to the schools. From just over $400,000 in FY15 to $762,914 in FY16 and projected for $778,172 in FY17, the city-assessed cost of police in the schools has nearly doubled over the past two years. That isn't the full cost; there's still $120,000 in the Supplemental Program Salaries, as well.
This year, there's not only the continued jump in police charges, but there's also an increase of almost $100,000 in administrative charges.
As always, those aren't costs the school committee votes on; they're charges the city levies against the school department, over which the school department has no say.
Thus the "over foundation" portion of the WPS budget is coming mostly in city administration and in policing.

The City Council hears the Worcester Public Schools' budget at their May 24 meeting; the Worcester School Committee budget hearings are I believe, as they aren't posted, June 2 and June 16.

Open questions for Worcester on FY17

If the projected timeline holds, the Worcester Public Schools' FY17 budget should come out a week from today (here).

We got an answer, and a disappointing one, yesterday, to the question if the proposed building shift would be included in the FY17 budget: no, and because the incoming superintendent nixed it. When we heard last month that it was being dropped, I had wondered if that was budget-related; from the numbers involved, clearly not. In fact, a long term investment is being dropped in favor of an ongoing expanded expense.
This does not bode well.

Questions I have at this point:

• Exactly how many of the projected 15-20 secondary teachers are going to lose their jobs, at which schools, and in which subjects? What is that going to do to the class schedules of kids next year? How many study halls are we going to have now? 
• Where are those 1900 elementary school students who are going to be in class sizes of 27 or more? Are they (as I would suspect) concentrated in higher-poverty, higher-need (more crowded) schools?
• What does "administration reorganization" mean? Are positions--I hesitate to even suggest it as it would be outrageous--being added this year, while we fire secondary teachers and send elementary class sizes up?
• Are any--any?--student support positions being added? Guidance counselors? Adjustment counselors? Given the incredible mental health needs in this district...anything?
• How exactly is the cut in special education going to be managed, given the high rate of need of the WPS population?
• Does the budget calculate in the $3M in health insurance changes that it appears the School Committee (? or administration?) want to negotiate with the teachers in the new contract? 
• What's going on with the International Baccalaureate program? I've heard rumors that there's an incoming attempt to instead retrench (which is exactly what it would be) further in AP. Will the IB position be continued next year? Will an innovation plan be put together, forwarded and approved by the School Committee, and advance to the state level? Will there be an incoming class for fall of 2017 in the proposed IB academy? 
• Is anyone planning for what happens when the dual language program kids hit middle school (happening the year after next)?
• What rate is the city going to charge on grants this coming year? City Manager Augustus lowered the rate last year and said that would continue; has it?
• Who is paying for the expanded police presence at the Worcester Public Schools? Is the city entirely covering it, or are they loading it in as a charge against net school spending?
• Is there an expanded security budget? For what, exactly?
• What does the capital budget look like this year? Is the proportion of funding still completely out-of-wack in balancing city and schools? 

And, perhaps more largely:

• is there going to be any effort to actually expand funding this year?

More as I have it

There you have it

On a 6-1 vote, Maureen Binienda voted in as new superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools.

Foley opposed. 

Unanimous vote follows.

UPDATE: And rarely do the T&G editorial board and Clive McFarlane agree, but on this one, it appears they do. 

Worcester School Committee meets at 7 (and we're taking interim appointment out of order)

The agenda is here.

taking interim out of order

Worcester School Committee meets September 18

The Worcester School Committee has its regularly scheduled meeting this Thursday, September 18, at 7 pm at City Hall. You can find the agenda here.
First up, recognitions! Worcester Tech English teacher Caitlin McCarthy is being recognized for her Kathleen Roberts Creative Leadership Award from the MTA. Ms. McCarthy was recognized for her work on diethylstilbestrol (DES) (a synthetic estrogren) and its impact on those who have been exposed in utero. For more on that, see here. 
We had a great event this summer, seeing some nice work at Worcester East Middle School's library, due to their librarian Sarah Kopka and the grant she received from Heart of America. That, with volunteers from AbbVie, led to a lovely library!
Jennifer Cordero, a student at Doherty, was selected for the Hispanic Youth Research and Leadership program at the University of New Mexico.
And the Worcester Bravehearts baseball team, along with others, instructed some of our youth in solar and STEM topics this summer.

The report of the Superintendent is (my personal favorite) the opening of school report! The presentation is not yet posted. Should you want to know how the beginning of school went, or all those numbers that go into running a system of 25,000 students, this is the report for you!

"Worcester: the City That Reads and Smiles!" kicks off on October 3. We're going to be hearing from Jen Carey on that during the meeting. 
A recommendation from Mr. O'Connell coming in that we acknowledge the late Rep. Binienda.
Mr. O'Connell wants to try out standing desks. 


We have this great list of facilities work that was done over the summer. 

We are being asked to approve three grants: one for $16,500 from the Mass Biotechnology Education Foundation for science equipment for Worcester East Middle School; $15,000 from the Verizon Foundation for STEM education for grade 5; and $31,200 for "professional development innovation" from the state (I don't know what that last one means, either, but I'll ask.)


Mr. Monfredo is asking about additional bullying prevention programs for October, and the bowling club at Tech. 
I'm asking that we give our student advisory council space on the agenda. 

And it's INTERNATIONAL WALK TO SCHOOL DAY on October 8; please plan to celebrate!

Miss Ramirez proposes honoring Candles to Crayons.
Ms. Biancheria is asking for a review of procedures for kindergartners getting on and off buses.

We're being asked to approve school year calendars through 2018! 
We're being asked to approve the appointment of a nurse.

And we have two items in executive session (which starts at 6, which is going to be interesting, as the City Council now has a meeting at 5:30): collective bargaining with nurses, and an update on litigation. 

Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday

The Worcester School Committee has the first March meeting on Thursday. You can find the agenda here.
First up, the postponed honors from last week for South High.
We also have a member of the public coming to speak on PARCC. That, combined with a response from administration regarding an item from Ms. Colorio on PARCC, means it is up for discussion. Please come if you wish to be heard!
We have several responses coming back from administration: on the Sheriff's FACE to FACE program; on posting the Friday letters online (they're up!); on the participation of students with disabilities in athletics; on data charts (no, not walls); and on sending requests for repairs through SchoolDude.
We have Ms. Biancheria's items, held from last week.
We have a request to approve a prior year payment of$1,960.00.
The School Committee is requested to accept the donation of $2500 for a scholarship for a graduating senior, which is from ASBO due to Mr. Allen's Distinguished Eagle Award
We have a request to approve a prior year payment of $28,105 to Behavior Concepts, Inc. for ABA services.
I've put the proposed charter regulation changes on the agenda for consideration ahead of the Board of Ed's March 24th meeting; I've also proposed that we urge our delegation to oppose any lift of the charter school cap.
We're being asked to accept a donation to the Caradonio New Citizens Center from METSO Automation USA, Inc.
We have a bit of a tweak to Worcester East Middle School's Statement of Interest with MSBA--if you're interested in WEMS, you'll want to read it--that adds a general systems upgrade to the request for roof and windows that we'd requested. It's pretty cool that MSBA did this; they could have just turned us down flat, but instead agreed that we needed what we asked for and more.
We've got the Meritorious Budget Award!
Assuming a positive vote, we're setting a date for budget priority setting of March 20.
We're going to recognize our ski team (that we share with St. Peter-Marian).
We're asked to accept a donation of $500 from METSO Automation USA, Inc to Clark Street for basketball.
And we're working on moving the School Committee date in April off of Holy Thursday, for those who observe it.

Plus: executive session has three student long-term suspension hearings.

7 pm, Thursday!

Questions

I'll catch my notes up later...low battery
This is Maureen Binienda, principal of South High
temporary walls/partitions from UNUM
had to take down the temporary ones from 1978 over the summer, as they were damaged.
ones donated from UNUM; more to come once they move
ideal would be putting up walls
need more than visual barriers; need sound barriers
"ideally we really need walls..."

O'Brien announces that Treasurer Steve Grossman will be coming out to visit and tour some of our schools on February 29th (the Mass School Building Authority is under the Treasurer's department)

come spring, doing a series of public meetings and hearings regarding school buildings and repairs
"would like to do a meeting at Nelson Place, as well as Worcester East Middle"


Foley: "reverse inter-high championship as to who has the worst facility"
"we've heard you and we know the challenges that are there"

Legislative letters for FY12

I'm just finishing up my letters to the Worcester delegation on the proposed FY12 budget. If you have any thoughts on the budget, I'd urge you to do the same.
If you don't know who represents you in Boston, you can look up your representative and senator here.
If you're in Worcester, the delegation is:

• Rep. John Mahoney, Room B2
• Rep. James O'Day, Room 254
• Rep. John Fresolo, Room 156
• Rep. Vincent Pedone, Room 20
• Rep. John Binienda, Room 166
• Senator Michael Moore, Room 518
• Senator Harriette Chandler, Room 312-D

In all cases, the rest of the address is:
The State House
Boston, MA 02133

And yes, of course you can also email and call. +