Hey a new Burncoat is happening

 ...and while it sorta felt like things were dormant there for awhile--why can't we announce building committees?--there are updates, and, more importantly, places to weigh in. 
Burncoat High School page has an offshoot on the building project which notes that the building committee met for the first time last week* and there was a visioning session last night. 
But there are more: 

• On Tuesday, May 19, from 3:00-6:00 PM, the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #1 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.
  
  
• On Tuesday, May 26, from 4:00-7:30 PM (dinner will be provided), the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #2 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.
  
  
• On Wednesday, June 10, from 3:00-6:00 PM, the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #3 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.

Good luck if you can only make something after 5, I guess, because only last night's did. 

I really, really urge you to attend this, because Worcester, while it is speedy at getting schools through, in part does that by having one of the least public building processes around. They'll have only the building committee meetings that they are required by MSBA to have. The School Committee in Worcester has very, very limited involvement, so you also won't see updates there.

This is it. Weigh in now. 

__________________
*which also does not say who is on it. Sigh.

Doherty building committee votes on Preferred Schematic Design

The meeting is on the Esther Howland Chamber. You can call 415-655-0001 (Access Code: 735751404) to participate.
The PowerPoint is here. The actual report, which crashed my laptop, is here.
A thing that it seems as though we should be talking about is this:

Construction: $238,910,676
Total project budget: $293,384,178
Estimated MSBA grant: 47%

Two Worcester meetings next week

On Monday night the 29th at 6:30, the Doherty building committee meets to vote on the preferred schematic design.

On Thursday the 2nd at 5, the Worcester School Committee is having a special meeting specifically to discuss the state's guidance and get an update on the budget.

Worcester School Committee first business meeting of 2020

The agenda is here.
I'll update as I am able


There's a number of petitions coming in from Mr. Davis, which are here. Important note: public petitions are referred to subcommittee without comment from the committee (they aren't posted items, so committee deliberation would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law). This doesn't mean you're being ignored! Petitioners are informed of when the subcommittee meeting is on their items, at which deliberation actually takes place.
In this case, the petition includes a number of proposed topics for policies, and the items are being referred to Governance (chaired by Mrs. Clancey, Mr. Monfredo and I are the other two members).
Speakers speak to the school to prison pipeline, the need for anti-bias training, and greater consideration for the ways in which students, particularly those of color are treated
Petty speaks that wellness counselors is something important to be considered under the funding of the Student Opportunity Act.
Items gb 0-32 and 33 are taken out of order, as Teamsters are here to speak to them.
Mr. Foley notes that the School Committee has little idea of how the buses are actually doing at this time; the items are designed to give that information to the School Committee.
The Teamster business manager doesn't believe that the schools should be running buses, that he'd like to see "both sides" held accountable.
Ms. Biancheria objects to the comparison with Framingham, noting its relative difference in size, comments that she doesn't want to micromanage, that a bus being 15 minutes late on a single day happens due to traffic or construction sometimes.
I spoke, adding a motion, which passed, requesting a simple reporting form on the transportation page for parents and students to report buses which are late, asking that we receive that report weekly until MyStop is up and running (we're on the third contract requiring GPS reporting), and urging administrators to report late buses. I also said a lot about parent and student experience of buses. 
Administration says that MyStop should be up and running in the coming weeks; integration with Durham is what is lacking, it appears.
And the morning article on that is here


Report of the Superintendent is an update on the building of the new South High (the backup is here, but it's just photos; the report includes a video, which the Mayor asks be put up on the website). The Mayor notes that it is projected to open at about the same time as the baseball stadium.

Presentation on vaping: you can find resources here
The Mayor's question is requesting clarification of the amount of nicotine: a Juul pod is the same amount as a pack of cigarettes.

The Commissioner shared with the urban superintendents a presentation which Superintendent Binienda presents: Governor Baker's budget is released on January 22, the Commissioner will present at the superintendents' gathering the next day (Thursday).
Plans must be voted by the school committee prior to submission on April 1; the plan then is for the Worcester School Committee to have it at their last March meeting
focus on how funding will be used to reduce gaps
"commit to doing a few things well" built on district improvements
The state is attempting to require curriculum to be on CURATE in order to be approved
required that parents, community stakeholders, the special education and English learner PAC
collaboration with the community groups
"right now we've been told that no district should be talking about any type of number on this"
"they're also in the process of writing an amendment process" which I assume is due to the fact that budgets essentially are never based on the Governor's budget
targets will be calculated using 2020 as a baseline, but many of them don't exist
the thinking at this time is that there will be metrics but no targets
thus target setting would not be required in the initial plan submitted in April.

Mayor: this is probably the most important issue we'll be doing over the
three Mondays in February excluding vacation week, first week in March in four different quadrants
have we're going to operate those meetings
then come up with a report on how those meetings will be run
Foley: also doing something online to solicit feedback
critical importance of adding our parent advisory councils involved
use site councils
Monfredo: one of the groups we need to reach out to is our educators
teachers have a vested stake in our schools
Binienda: just sent out allocation dates to principals for their meetings
I'll update this with more info as we have it. Also note that the next meeting on Feb. 6 will be on budget

report on the question of consolidation of facilities city and school sides
I had some questions on this, which I'll post on.

report on Columbus Park school, which notes that the HVAC systems (outside the boiler)
Foley: we're at 80% of the deferred maintenance in our buildings (of all buildings in the city, WPS has 65%)
"we have a financial problem in investing in our schools"
remember, we closed eight schools: "our elementary schools are bursting at the seams"

We're going to have to come back to the argument over grants...I'll make a separate post...

On Miss McCullough's request for a report the last 7-10 years on the number of students in the WPS who have mastered a particular trade and succeeded in securing a position in it, we apparently only check this one year out because it is hard to find the graduated students longer.

The Mayor's item to send the rules to subcommittee (Governance) raised concerns from Biancheria and Monfredo that, in essence, we might spend less time on recognitions.

After a back and forth in which Mr. Monfredo initially made a motion to hold and then withdrew it, the Mayor's item on sex ed goes to subcommittee. This made me realize that the state is behind where it said it would be on the new standards; they should have been out for public comment by now. 

Doherty building meetings

There was one round of scheduling and then a second round of scheduling, but they seem to have settled on the following:

• Monday, December 9 for a presentation on the feasibility study and options
• Wednesday, December 18 for a presentation on the preferred location followed by a vote

In both cases, the building committee then the public will be able to ask questions.

Both meetings are at 6:30 at the school.

Ask enough and sometimes you’ll receive

...’though let me note that I did not receive this from the city or the schools:

Note that the WPS positions noted are upon appointment; some of those appointed have since changed jobs within the system. So far as we know, they haven’t been replaced on the committee.

Also, aside from those holding their spot by virtue of serving otherwise, I am not seeing a WPS parent here. 

Some questions I have after last night's Doherty meeting

The Doherty building project page now has last night's presentation posted. Looking through that, and thinking about all of this some more, I have some questions:

• Are we ever going to get the full list of who is on the building committee? In most places, there is a public appointment and a public list. We're this far along, and many of us are still wondering who was appointed. UPDATE: now posted here, not via the city or the schools

• The building will more than double in size, from 170,000 square feet to 420,000 square feet. Some of this is due to required additions, like those for special ed. However, some of it is due to the addition of four Chapter 74 programs proposed for addition to Doherty: 
• Engineering and Technology (expanding to 400 students)
• Marketing, Management, and Finance (200 students)
• Programming and Web Development (200 students)
• Construction Craft Laborer (150 students)
...which isn't required. Thus, if space is a concern, and not subverting needed programming is key, should these programs be added A) at Doherty and B) at all?


• Likewise, the parking is going from 250 parking spaces to 430, of which 180 are for staff and 250 for visitors and students. Is this really that much of a priority? We need 250 spaces for students and visitors?

• Slide 18, designing on-site replacement, has two "new athletic fields" over by Newton Square, on Parks property, on the current site of the basketball court and tennis courts (at left in the below photo).
  
  
  Is that simply designating that there current is a basketball and tennis courts or is there, in fact, a plan to put fields on Pleasant and Highland on opposite ends of the rotary?


• I'm all for embracing pedestrian access--really! and it is good that it is being included and considered, as below in the white dotted lines coming down the bottom towards the far side of Newton Hill--
  
  
  but slide 21 which includes that ignores some of where that foot traffic goes now (specifically, down the hill and straight across Park to Elm Park). There's even a stairway there! If we don't know where people are actually going, that doesn't seem very hopeful on how well we are tracking what is needed.


• Also, if you look at the above, that puts four driveways--two in and two out--on Highland. We don't have a choice on Highland, as that's where the frontage is, but that's a lot of driveways.


• For those who have ever wondered, regarding Beaver Brook and Foley Stadium a) what was floodplain, b) where that culvert went, slide 22 has an answer:
  
    
   Between the end zone and the twenty yard line, it looks like. It's an 84 inch culvert, they said last night, and the soil is urban fill and ash. Not something to mess with.
  Beaver Brook, of course, is city parkland, and both here and on Newton Hill, it is reassuring to see that the City and all have learned the lesson of Worcester Tech around park takings: don't do it.

• Among the "existing Chandler Magnet Site notes" is "Existing 1950's school" but somehow the actual operation of that school, the presence of 500 students being educated in the building, including the only bilingual program in the district, is entirely left off. Both here and in the site evaluations, I am troubled that this somehow didn't figure in. Leaving aside the impact on students of losing a school--something which very much does matter, as has been extensive researched--the district somehow coping with 500 students being thrust back into the rest of the system is not something that can lightly be dismissed. I heard more than one parent ask if, for example, closing Worcester Arts Magnet would be floated so lightly.
  Whatever the neighborhood schools of those students--and it's hard to miss the "go back where they came from" of such a push--most of Worcester's elementary schools are at or near capacity. I don't know of the current enrollment of the school, but in the past, that school drew heavily from the neighborhood of Chandler Elementary, a school so overenrolled that half of it meets at the Y. The district's not having a long term plan for Chandler Elementary's enrollment is itself dismaying; I have a difficult time imagining a reality in which we all blithly accepted that half a school would go elsewhere for the foreseeable future. That it would be worsened in part so as to avoid having Doherty students have to move for a few years is simply unjust.

• Having been part of the conversation around Worcester State's wish to have the same field at Chandler Magnet for parking, I have to ask: has anyone actually had a discussion with Worcester State about those proposed land takings needed to make this proposal work? As someone who lives in the neighborhood, my own experience with Worcester State is they are hanging on to every square inch they have and are looking to acquire more. 




That's what I have right now. More as I have it. 

Doherty building meeting tonight

There's a meeting about the Doherty High building project tonight at the school at 6:30. The agenda:

6:30-6:40 | Introductions
6:40-6:50 | Feasibility Study Update |
6:50-7:30 | Potential Site Location Discussion |
7:30-8:00 | Public Input / Q&A

Note, incidentally, that this is a "meeting about the building," not an official "building committee meeting." It's probably a good idea to also note that this means that there's no guarantees that most of the building committee--those who will vote on preferred location--will actually be present. 

Doherty building public session

There's a lot of schmoozing going on here
Hey! The presentation is posted here.
update on the Feasibility study and the site study so far
"we like the back and forth" we're told by Russ Adams (Worcester DPW)
and there's no way I'm going to be able to keep up with names
the principal architect is currently speaking
overview of project and schedule (starting with literal overview through drone footage)
MSBA building process: now in module three, the Feasibility first part
fall of 2024 for occupancy of school; "that's the best case scenario"
preliminary design program phase of project

Doherty Memorial building committee

The city said this afternoon that, though it is a public meeting, no public questions or comments would be taken, despite questions being posted on the agenda. 

While the meeting tonight is open to the public, there is no public participation. Future meetings seeking input from the community will be held & publicized in advance via the city's website/social media platforms.

— City of Worcester (@TweetWorcester) May 13, 2019

The agenda is as follows: 

At the @DohertyMemorial building committee (in the cafeteria, should you be looking for it) pic.twitter.com/CKsgZe4pQR

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 13, 2019

The meeting was posted for 6:30...it has not, as yet, started, but I'll be updating this as we go.

DPW Commissioner Paul Moosey presenting
one of the things DPW does is oversee school construction
updating building committee
Tishman is building project manager; LPA selected to design new Doherty, also designed Nelson Place and South
Feasibility is "when we look at what program is this building going to need"
1670 students is settled with MSBA, "which this building can't contain anything near that"
"that's the biggest part of it is the program"
"then what are your options to get there": to add on and renovate, or look for another site, or squeeze another building onto this site, or take this building down and build new
going to do visioning: "get a little bit more public input than we have had in the past"
"a substantial investment, probably at least as much as South High"
"this school is surrounded by parkland"
"the city administration has no interest in touching the parkland"
"but [also] you're not going to see a new school in 2024, which is what we're committed to" if we touch the parks
the superintendent has arrived
Tishman going through the modules of MSBA
now in module 3; "the city has done terrific to this point...getting MSBA to even look at the school"
first phase is the preliminary design program: scheduled to be completed in September this year
then preferred schematic design submitted in December of this year
plan is for occupation in September of 2024
president of LPA "so pleased to be here today"
and now is introducing people who work there
program development, then alternative site evaluation, evaluation of existing building and site
"allows the best option to rise to the surface"
uh, maybe
"at the end of this process we choose three options to pursue further"
"very inclusive and thorough process to gather input"
"want to get as much input prior the end of the school as possible"
"some big picture visioning sessions" which she says "we will get to you"
special ed is reviewed separately through DESE; Ch.74 is envisioned to continue with engineering

Parra reviewing quadrant; looks at all sites of a particular size in the quadrant

This is the Doherty quadrant. “What is available in the quadrant” pic.twitter.com/fGFgh0o3db

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 13, 2019

available sites, road access, neighborhood concerns "find the best site to meet the needs of the school"
 "comparative" as it is only sites that actually exist
will look at site itself, as well as adjacencies to park
comparative designs: first is a no build; then additions and renovations, then new constructions on exisiting site, looking at swing space putting building on current site

Moosey: very compressed schedule, LPA has really made a huge commitment
"very accelerated"
Augustus: Nelson Place on schedule, on budget, close to energy independent
"if you think about the cost of South High School" $210M or so
Doherty close to $230M: "the city in partnership with the state will build the equivalent to new five ballparks, so we have our priorities straight"
"that's important that people remember that and acknowledge that"
acknowledges Mahoney and Chandler
South: the state is reimbursing us 55%, so the city needs to come up with 45% (thus not, let's say, five ballparks)
"actively talk more about the vision for the schools" than we have in the past

Bergman: 2024 as opening date?
there was some discussion of MSBA changing policy on pools: is that true? is this a chance to discuss that?
Moosey: I haven't confirmed that that is the case
Bergman: there wasn't the publicity that there could have been; "not a criticism, it's an observation"
"moving forward" asks that we do better
Q: are there alternative areas being considered?
Is Duddie in the district? "believe it is just outside the district"

Here’s the map: pic.twitter.com/Q7ztHfrQd8

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 13, 2019

Q: who is on the building committee and what is their role?
"certain votes that they have to take"
"building committee has a role in that?" yes, they do
could we just get their names published?
how long from shovels to building? South High is 33-34 months of construction
what about if you have students here: where do they go?
if you keep them here, that's difficult, but it's been done
"not off the table, MSBA will look at that option"
Q: how will that process unfold? "it's way too early to talk about that"
Q: I am not asking for an outcome; that will be a public process, involve the public schools
"yes, it would have to be the schools"
Q: is that something that parents would be involved in? this is not thoroughly answered
Q: land granted to school versus taking
Friends of Newton Hill, concerned with using full space of school, could cut into space "functionally parkland"
Moosey: "I mean outside of that border" of 20 acres

there is an upcoming meeting, it is not yet scheduled, they took names but no contact information

Nelson Place School Feasibility Study Public Hearing

There will be a public hearing on the Nelson Place Feasibility Study next Monday, September 15 at 7 pm at the school.
The presentation will be posted in advance of the meeting (and I'll link when it does).

And a few dates in advance: the Schematic Design Review for the Building Committee is scheduled for October 27 at 7. The review and vote of the Schematic Design is scheduled for December 8, also at 7. All meetings are at the school, and are public meetings.

Nelson Place School Public Hearing

Monday, September 15, 2014, 7:00 – 9:00pm

Location: Nelson Place School Cafeteria

This meeting is an opportunity for the School Building Committee and the Public to review and comment on Schematic Design development.

Nelson Place vote Monday

The Nelson Place building committee meets Monday on which plan goes forward to the state. The agenda for the meeting is posted here. Note that there are two votes being requested: not only the preferred schematic design, but also for a revised preliminary design proposal (which is a redo of a previous vote. Not sure what's going on there).
No presentation up yet, but I suspect, from what was said at the last meeting, that it's going to look something like one of the option C's in the last meeting.
7 pm at the school

Additional Nelson Place public hearing scheduled

I've just been told that an additional public hearing on Nelson Place has been scheduled, AHEAD of the next vote of the building committee on the Preferred Schematic Design.
The meeting is on Monday, March 31 at 7 pm at the school.

Please come and please spread the word!

Schools on the Council agenda this week

There are several items on tomorrow night's City Council agenda regarding schools:

• Item 9.31A and 17h is the $6 million loan order for rehabilitation for schools; this is two years of $3 million each.
• Item 10A is the Committee on Education reporting out and includes the PowerPoint presentation that we received in our joint meeting. 
• Item 11i is from Councilor Palmieri, asking for cleaning and mulch at the LakeView playground (which isn't at the school but in the park across the street).
• Item 11j is from Councilor Economou, asking for an update on Nelson Place. We haven't had an official announcement of a building committee (as appointed by the City Manager) as yet; I have heard that the parent/neighborhood search process is on. Much of the committee is set by the requirements of MSBA (it has to have the Superintendent, the City Manager, the finance officer, the principal, etc). The questions regarding rehab/rebuild and location are ones that will be answered during the feasibility stage; one could even say that we CANNOT know this yet, as we have to look at all options during feasibility.