We're losing kids on free lunch

 Hey, remember how we've noted that as we lose SNAP enrollment, we're going to lose free lunch enrollment?

That has now started to be seen happening, per EdWeek

In addition to Miami-Dade, some schools in nearby Palm Beach County, Fla., Houston, the San Antonio area, and Hardin County, Ky., have also announced the end of universal free meals in recent months because they no longer qualify for CEP.

Hysom anticipates more districts will follow suit.

on Massachusetts free lunch

While I'm still working to update my spreadsheet on the FY24 conference committee budget now on Governor Healey's desk, I did want to note how one thing that had been up in the air--universal free lunch--is resolved within this budget. 

The language, which is in the outside section  (that link via State House News) on page 16, reads as follows: 

SECTION 34. Chapter 69 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out section 1C and inserting in place thereof the following 2 sections:-
Section 1C. (a)(1) The board shall require all schools providing school lunch as provided in the National School Lunch Act, as amended, or school breakfast as provided in the National Child Nutrition Act, as amended, to make breakfast and lunch available at no charge to each attending student regardless of household income. Schools shall maximize access to federal funds for the cost of breakfast and lunch by adopting: (i) the federal community eligibility provision or provision 2, pursuant to section 72A of chapter 71; or (ii) other applicable federal provisions, including, but not limited to, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Public Law 111-296. The department shall reimburse the difference between the amount paid by the United States Department of Agriculture and the free rate as set annually by the United States Secretary of Agriculture under 42 U.S.C. 1759a for each school.

So what that means is every Massachusetts public school is now required to feed all kids without charge, by Board of Elementary and Secondary Education requirement. All districts have to adopt Community Eligibility or other provisions, which provides for reimbursement from the federal government for the students who are considered low income. (That is how Worcester has done universal free lunch since 2015. This piece appears to change nothing for the Worcester Public Schools and the other CEP districts.)

Note, though, that this won't be enough reimbursement for most districts to cover their costs. It is last line that kicks in state reimbursement: the Department--that's DESE--is required to kick in the difference between recognizing all kids as eligible and those that otherwise qualify. 

While there's only $102.5M (in line 7053-2925) set aside for that, the budget has $69M also set aside from Fair Share [updated].

The second section referenced requires all districts who have 60% or more kids who are recognized as low income to do breakfast after the bell, so that students are also getting breakfast, often in classrooms. 

The section goes on also to require the Board to set up school nutrition standards, which I flag a concern I have about over here.

This is of course all subject to Governor Healey's action (though, so far as I have seen, no one seems to think she'll veto this).

On AP, "advanced coursework," and how budget and policy can't be separated

While I tweeted out some of this yesterday, I wanted to talk some more about this article from Scott O'Connell on Worcester's "advanced coursework" numbers.

Let's first acknowledge that much of the point of having items included in the state accountability system is to have districts have just this discussion ('though it would be useful for the discussion to take place at actual school committee meetings, not only the pages of the local paper). The addition of access to advanced coursework recognizes the long history of access to such coursework being inequitable, with students of color, those whose first language is one other than English, those who are poor, being much less likely to have access to such courses and to take such courses in high school. This is part of the report for a reason: subgroup data is what needs to be focused on here.

It's also important to note that while both international baccalaureate and advanced placement courses are included in these numbers, that isn't all. The state's glossary defines it as:

This indicator is reported as the percentage of all students enrolled in 11th and 12th grade that achieve a passing score in at least one advanced course, including but not limited to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), dual enrollment for credit, and other selected rigorous mathematics and science courses.

The "rigorous mathematics and science courses" (a limit which makes this humanities person bristle: figure out how to include humanities on that one, DESE!) naturally includes a significant number of courses that are neither AP or IB (it basically includes all math after algebra II, for example; the full list, downloaded from DESE, is here). Such courses "largely fall[ing]" within AP and IB is too sweeping a statement.

It is absolutely the case, though, that Worcester has made a major push in recent years not only to expand AP courses, but to push more kids into them, and I use that verb advisedly. There have been and continue to be open questions around the actual benefits to students of advanced placement courses, and this is something Worcester--and most districts--haven't addressed in any way.

In terms of access, the story is in the subgroups, and the article calls that out:

Worcester’s advanced course-completion numbers were not equal across student subgroups and schools. White (62 percent) and black (61 percent) students, for instance, had higher rates then [sic] Latino (49 percent) students. Economically disadvantaged students (52 percent), high needs students (51 percent), and English language learners (40 percent) also completed advanced classes at a lower rate than the district average.

You can find that data here (scroll down). You can also compare it to the prior year (which makes it look like something weird was going on last year with the students with disabilities subgroup), though a single year change may not be much to go on. This does show, however, what is improving, what is not, and by how much; you don't, as with economically disadvantaged students, want to see numbers getting smaller.

The category including courses beyond AP, however, does make the numbers that much more sobering: only 58% of the entire student body received a passing grade in ANY advanced coursework last year? That's troubling.

The article misses one important piece of information around AP access in Worcester, however; it's this, from the Advanced Placement policy in the student handbook (p. 68 in the PDF):

Students are responsible for costs for Advanced Placement Exams. The cost for one Advanced Placement Exam is $90.00. Scholarships and reduced fees are available for eligible students. School guidance counselors can provide additional information. Students must take the Advanced Placement Examination in their course in order to receive Advanced Placement credit for the course. Students who do not take the Advanced Placement Examination, but pass the course, shall receive honors credit for the course

Students are responsible for the costs of the exams; each exam costs $90. The fee has only been waived for some of the math and science courses in recent years; students have to pay $90 for each exam. Those eligible for free and reduced lunch--a form that is no longer filled out in Worcester under community eligiblity--are assessed half price.
Maybe $50 doesn't sound like a lot to you. Maybe you're not among the majority of WPS students living in poverty, who somehow have to come up with $50 for every single advanced placement course they take in high school.
Because Worcester doesn't fund the test, and because the policy incentivizes taking the test, the policy creates an inequity the budget doesn't fix. The inequity of one only furthers the inequity of the other.

And why does the AP/honors distinction matter? Because an A in an AP course counts as a 5 in a GPA, while an A in an honors course counts as a 4.
I'd suggest that asking our valedictorians how much they've had to pay in exam fees would be a good question around equity in access. Only those who can afford the fee can afford to have particularly high GPAs in Worcester.
And only those who can afford to pay can take AP courses at all in Worcester.

Senate Ways and Means budget

I posted my notes on reviewing this yesterday in a thread here. 

Moving along...

The Senate Ways and Means page is here; above, they've moved on to "Debate" because they are already taking amendments, which are due by noon Monday.
Just like we talked about in the House budget post, the Senate budget is divided into sections ('though not the same ones, and no, I don't know why they do that. Or why everything is PDFs you have to download). In the Senate, the Fiscal Note is "how we're going to pay for it," Appropriations is the line item spending, Local Aid is, yes, local aid (but with language on how it's being allocated!) , and Outside Sections is "here's some other things we'd like to do while we're doing the budget." For our purposes here, we actually need all of the last three!
I'll tell you up front that the outside sections have both a regional district foundation budget review commission AND a local contribution review commission.

Let's run through the line items first, and then loop back to the local aid and outside sections, both of which have implications on how the foundation budget is or will be calculated.

• DESE's line is up, but it's earmarks (looking particularly like the Senate Ways and Means Chair district there).
• METCO is down $1M from the House to $21.1M.
• The organizations you'd look for for early literacy (Reading Recovery, Bay State Reading) are arranged a little differently, but still there (not cut as in Governor's budget).
• School-to-career is up a bit (about $90K) to make it an even $4M.
• The ELL line is about a million less than the House (for an odd $1,550,002...is that actual spending?) and the earmark for Gateways is gone.  
• Institutional schools is the same $7.4M.
• Adult ed is up a million and a half from the HW&M budget ($32.5M)
• Regional school transportation is $62.5M (same as House W&M before amending)
• The Senate puts in $250K for transportation for non-resident pupils to voke techs (with a proviso that more funding be requested as needed)
• McKinney-Vento reimbursement down a million from the House budget (so $8M)
• AP line down $300K from House
• Breakfast the same, lunch strips the House earmark.
• Ch.70 is up $35.6M (which we'll come back to!) overall
• $15M for kids from Puerto Rico is there; that low income shift pothole from the House is not.
• This is big: Full (they intend) funding of the circuit breaker of $318M (House had $300M)
• Federal impact aid is back at $1.3M (wasn’t in the House at all)
• The other big one on reimbursement shifts: $100M for charter school reimbursement (up from $90M in the House, up from flat funding in the Governor’s)
• Innovation schools planning back in for $100K (this wasn't in the Governor or the House budget)
• MCAS (the battle of line 7061-9400) is BACK DOWN to $27M and no mention of history; that's how the House had it, but it was amended back to the Governor's $35M and with language talking of history expansion, as the Department requested. This one may go to conference committee...
• Possibly relatedly MCIEA has their line back: $200K; that was in neither the Governor nor House budget.
• Targeted intervention line $6.7M (down $500K) from House
• Extended learning time is the same ($13.9M)
• Recovery high schools up $625K (to $3.1M)
• After and out of school line is up $481K, but it’s earmarked (shout out to Recreation Worcester, $400K)
• Safe and supportive schools is down $100K from the House (so $500K)
• Yes, Mass Academy of Math and Science has their $1.4M
• Youth build programs up $650K from House
• Mass Mentoring up $275K from House
• And regional bonus aid for $56,920, which wasn't in the House.

Okay, so what's up with Chapter 70? 

If you go to Section 3, the Local Aid section (which is where lots of local officials go first, because it's where the unrestricted local aid and Ch. 70 numbers are), you find the description of how Chapter 70 is going to work this year. The description of the funding system starts in the paragraph that opens "For fiscal year 2019, the foundation budget category"and ends (helpfully) with the words "The 'minimum aid increment' shall be equal to $30 multiplied by the district's foundation enrollment minus the foundation aid increment." And yes, that is just what you think it is: you just found the minimum per pupil aid increase! The Senate agrees with the House number of $30/pupil.
But there's lots else there: just up from the minimum per pupil is the 100% gap closing (which is a nice little "you don't have to try as hard" to the towns and cities); that boosts the Chapter 70 number for some districts, as it rejiggers the question of who pays for how much. And there's also the description of the employee benefit amounts in the foundation budget. Those numbers are the same as the House; it's being described because so far, that's the part of the foundation budget that they've been tweaking.

BUT THE SENATE DOES SOMETHING ELSE! They've made the ELL funding an increment over the base; in other words, your foundation budget (in the Senate budget) does NOT just count all your ELL students together and fund them at a certain amount each, as the House did. Your ELL students are sorted into their grade categories AND THEN THERE IS AN INCREMENT ON TOP OF THAT!
This does a couple of things: first, it's another foundation budget step (not on dollars, but on process!). Second, it does actually raise the amount of money per student that has ELL needs. Third (attention vokies!): this means vocational students who are also ELL get the ELL bump on top of the vocational rate!
What does that look like? In the House budget, the K-12 ELL rate was $9723 per pupil.
In the Senate, the total for an ELL student is $9941 for full-day K, $9970 for elementary, $9746 for middle, $10,860 for high, and $15,342 for vocational.
So yes, increased foundation budgets! And remember, on something like this, the big boost is going to be where there are larger concentrations of ELL students. And where is that? The same districts that are majority state funded. And that means the Chapter 70 goes up!

To give one example, Worcester's:
In the House $249,894,895
In the Senate $253,211,785
...an increase of $3.3M.
And this is, again, going to concentrate the increase on the districts that most need the boost and to some of the kids who most need the boost.

The outside section has some low income language in it. It adds the following as a new section 3B to MGL Chapter 70:

Section 3B. The department of elementary and secondary education shall make available to school districts a form to certify family income level for the purpose of calculating low-income enrollment. A school district may choose to have its low-income enrollment established through collection of the forms or through a direct certification system established by the executive office of health and human services, which may include the virtual gateway system.

What does that mean? It means that districts can choose to use direct certification (as we do now) OR that districts could use a form to certify family income. Essentially, it allows districts to choose how they count poor kids.
It adds:

Section 16 shall apply in fiscal year 2020. The department of elementary and secondary education shall provide school districts with the family income certification form described in section 3B of chapter 70 of the General Laws within a reasonable time prior to the low-income enrollment count process for the purposes of calculating chapter 70 aid in fiscal year 2020.

...so this isn't for this year but goes into effect next fiscal year (so the state would have to work on this during the coming year).
As I said earlier this week in my write-up on S.2506, the Senate is clearly hearing the district-level frustration around the kids who aren't being caught by direct certification and the subsequent unhappiness with finding more kids and DESE cutting the rates.
I think, honestly, that DESE's going to have a conniption over this idea.

Amendments are due Monday, May 14 at noon. The Senate takes up debate on Tuesday, May 22.

And as always if you have questions, please ask! 

Novick Reports: Healthy Food Fuels Hungry Minds conference in sum

As shared with MASC earlier today:

Earlier this week, I attended the Healthy Food Fuels Hungry Minds child nutrition conference, which MASC co-sponsored. The day’s schedule is here; you can also find a link to the presentations there. My liveblog of the day is here.

The morning keynote was Daniel Giusti, who you may know as a chef; he’s now working on Brigaid, which will have chefs working with and in schools in New London, CT. One of his points was the real gap that exists between the culinary world (most particularly including its training) and institutional food of all kinds. He’s clearly found the realities of school cafeterias eye-opening. It will be interesting to see where Brigaid goes.

The following presentations were on the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act and updated nutrition standards.

A few statistics I found interesting:

• Those in school meal programs consume about half of their calories in school.
• 97% of schools are meeting the new 2010 nutrition standards.
• Kids are now eating 13% more of their entrees, 16% or more vegetables and 23% more fruit at lunch.

While the HHFKA expired in September, Congress has yet to pass an update. There are concerns with the bills that have come out; see the slides for more details, though we’ve also discussed them on the [MASC] list-serv in the past. In particular, the proposed House change on Community Eligibility would remove 7000 schools that are currently in the program (and untold others that haven’t yet made it in).

The following panel was on the link between school food and school performance, though it also functioned as a reflection on what is and is not working around feeding kids. Beyond the obvious cost and delivery concerns, there was a repeated call for students to have food that is thoughtfully prepared and presented; to have enough time to sit and eat; and to have time to socialize over food. It wasn’t clear that the presenters knew where to go with that (‘though I think we do!).

I went to a session following on Springfield’s new Commissionary, which I didn’t take extensive notes on, but I’d encourage those interested to ask Springfield about. Boston City Council President Michelle Wu spoke of the importance of school food, and then I had to leave. My understanding, though, is that Boston Superintendent Tommy Chang echoed the importance of students having enough time to eat.

As always, questions welcome!

Healthy Food Fuels Hungry Minds conference

Not sure yet how I'll divide this one up...coming up is an update on the Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act and other legislation, changes in nutrition standards, and food and the link with school performance 

The Senate budget on K-12 education

The Senate budget is now posted. Nearly all of the following can be found under the "Appropriations" tab of the Senate post; I tweeted out what I found as I found it earlier today.

Please consider this my plea that the Legislature and Governor agree on a single format. Personally, I'd like the Governor's which has columns comparing past years. 


The big news is that the Senate's Chapter 70 amount is $20 million over the House amount. This is for two reasons: first, they've decreased community effort to 85% (meaning that towns' required spending on schools can go down; for some this will increase the state aid; Worcester is one of these). The big one, though (and one I want to pull the numbers on and do more with) is they're holding harmless the districts that were hit in the switch to economically disadvantaged. That means that they aren't doing the "pothole" that the Senate had; instead, they're taking a bit of what MassBudget suggested (not all of it) and, while they're using the economically disadvantaged numbers for the low income calculation in the foundation budget, they're also adding this bit (which you can find at the top of the "Local Aid" tab):

Each district shall be held harmless to the aid amount calculated using the district’s fiscal year 2016 percentage of low income foundation enrollment applied to the district’s fiscal year 2017 total foundation enrollment multiplied by the fiscal year 2016 low income rates for elementary and secondary students adjusted for inflation.

So if a district would have done better with  FY16 low income numbers applied to FY17 enrollment, you get that instead of the amount calculated under ED. That's a big difference! Do note, however, that if FY16 is used, while it's those higher poverty rates, it's the lower poverty rates.
There also is the language I mentioned earlier included on how low income is calculated and the annual implementation of the foundation budget review commission recommendations.
The Senate is also keeping the $55/pupil minimum aid increase with the attendant issues of doing things that way.
Something that will be a big worry to some districts (including my own) is that the Quality K grant is funded at $2M. Funding at last year (or the House) level is over $18M.
Regional transportation is funded at the Governor, not House level, so down $1M from the House.
METCO, McKinney-Vento transportation reimbursement, and AP expansion are the same as the House.
There's a line for transportation of non-resident vocational students of $1.7M, which was not in the House.
The circuit breaker is up over $3M from the House number.
Charter reimbursement is up $87.5M from the $85.5M the House budgeted (all those times we've talked about this: they were listening!).
Innovation schools (not in the House) are in for $500K.
MCAS is in at the same $25M.
The breakfast line item, which is down a bit from the House but doesn't have other things stuffed in it, also requires DESE to work on implementing breakfast in the classroom in the schools that are 60% free and reduced lunch.
Grants for after school programs are up by $600K from the House.
There's $350K allocated for DESE to implement a pilot alternative assessment, which I believe means that all of us out here talking about the inadequacy of the current means of assessment are being heard by at least the Senate.
There's also $250K allocated for an alternative education grant (which I suspect is the Senate's way of handling that we didn't go very far on handling the increased need after the Chapter 222 changes).
Youth mentoring is up $350K from the House.
Finally, there's $250K for the implementation of the "index of creative and innovative education" which was called for in the 2010 Act Relative to the Achievement Gap (right, you don't hear that mentioned often, do you?).


Amendments are due by end of day tomorrow; deliberation starts on Monday.

Worcester school meetings this week

There is an Accountability meeting Tuesday at 5:30 pm. On that agenda: review of the PARCC and MCAS scores for 2015; the impact of Community Eligibility on things besides feeding kids; the report from DESE visiting Elm Park Community School in December of 2014; and the review of school improvement plans and end of year reflections from UPCS (end of year),  and from Worcester Tech (end of year) (plus what looks like a response from an earlier inquiry about Wake Up Math at Forest Grove).

There is a regular committee meeting on Thursday. In addition to (lots of) recognitions, the above meeting with report out, there are a few notifications by administration of appointments.
Miss Biancheria is requesting a clarification on parking at the administration building, would like the job description of the HR director, and is requesting a report on services provided to Deaf and hard-of-hearing students.
There is a donation from Lou Anne & John Branche in the amount of $5,000 for McGrath Elementary School. There's also $500 each coming in from EOS as a recognition of universal breakfast (hurray!) at Belmont Street Community School School, Elm Park Community School, Goddard School of Science and Technology, Lincoln Street School, Francis J. McGrath Elementary School, Quinsigamond School, Rice Square School, Union Hill School, Vernon Hill School, Wawecus Road School, and Woodland Academy.
Ms. Colorio is requesting a report on excused and unexcused absences as used in accountability, and a report on staff development, parent involvement, and MCAS scores at Vernon Hill.
Mr. Monfredo is asking that students be informed about the Latino Dollars for Scholars dinner on May 21.
Miss McCullough is asking that students be informed about the dangers of the Space Monkey Challenge (yes, I had to Google it, too).

And there is an executive session scheduled on the ongoing (more than two months) negotiations with Ms. Binienda regarding the superintendent's contract.

House Child Nutrition bill would hit remove some from universal free lunch

The House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education released their reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act yesterday. That links to the bill: the release is here; the summary is here. While there are several things going on with the bill, there is one alarming change for a number of districts across the country, as pointed out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (among others):

If Chairman Rokita’s bill becomes law, 7,022 schools now using community eligibility to simplify their meal programs and improve low-income students’ access to meals would have to reinstate applications and return to monitoring eligibility in the lunch line within two years, as we’ve explained.  These schools serve nearly 3.4 million students.  Another 11,647 schools that qualify for community eligibility but have not yet adopted it would lose eligibility. This is due to the bill raising the percentage of students needed for Community Eligibility to 60% from 40%.

CBPP has put together a spreadsheet on which districts in particular would lose eligibility; this of course doesn't include districts that have been fighting to get their eligibility up to 40% (through making sure the records are all in and students are all registered for the programs for which they are qualified).
In Massachusetts, this includes a number of charter schools (including, Worcester, Seven Hills) and at least some schools in the following districts:

• Athol-Royalston
• Gardner
• Gill-Montague
• Greater New Bedford Tech
• Hawlemont Regional
• Orange
• Quabog
• Salem
• Southbridge
• Taunton
• Wales
• Waltham
• Wareham
• Webster
• West Springfield

And, again, this doesn't include the districts that have yet to get to 40% but are working to be sure their records are complete.

Should this be of concern, get in touch with your representative.

Important analysis from MassBudget on low income and free lunch

Two reports came out from MassBudget last week:

• First, there's an analysis of how direct certification--that's the process by which districts are now figuring out who is eligible for free lunch by their enrollment in other programs--is going with some suggestions on how to improve it. As we're still missing significant numbers of kids,(possibly over 100,000!) impacting not only who we feed but how we fund education as a whole, that matters. 
• Second, take a look at their thoughts on low income counts. The Governor's budget, of course, moves every district to the new economically disadvantaged measure, and then scales the funding by the concentration of poverty in the district. There are some issues with that, and some districts in particular that are getting hit by it, and MassBudget has some suggestions on how to improve it. Do particularly take a look at their district-by-district analysis of how the various scenerios would work out; in the case of Worcester, for example, results in $11M additional dollars for FY16, were the state to use the Governor's scaling, but FY16 (scaled) low income figures.

And after you read them, share with your legislators! This has implications not only for FY17, but also for the foundation budget numbers going forward.

Costs per breakfast over time

Interesting chart from USDA:

As always, you can click to make it bigger.

The numbers are from the last available data, which is from 2004, unfortunately, but the conclusion--that there were fewer breakfasts being served, but costs fell as numbers increased--bears out. 

I'd be interested in seeing if something further is seen with Community Eligibility as it increases participation.

Concerns around the connection between universal free lunch and school funding

I got a question yesterday about this coverage of concerns from Everett and Revere about how the loss of the free and reduced lunch measure will hit them on district funding. As I first posted in 2013 and more recently posted earlier this year, there are some significant concerns yet around the shift away from this funding model, and with regard particularly to Chapter 70, I don't think it's all been sorted out yet.
However, both Title I and Chapter 70 have (different) "hold harmless" provisions, which provide for changes in calculation, ensuring that districts DON'T have the sort of catastrophic drop in funding sketched out here. The idea that Revere's Chapter 70 funding would in one year plumet from 77 percent to 37 percent is...well, it's actually not possible under the foundation formula, which is 100% hold harmless. For Title I, the calculation (and I'm quoting DESE here) can only change for "population, Census poverty data, or enrollment" changes, and there's a floor to how much it can drop. Thus the concern that the Title I funding would slide like that doesn't pan out, either.*  

Now, the Legislature will need to address the funding issue, as Chapter 70 directly cites free and reduced lunch as a measure. Even before Worcester went to community eligibility, 21 districts had already moved to it, and several more have this year. That's a lot of districts that are just sailing on their previous free and reduced numbers, and I would assume it's also the majority of Chapter 70 aid received in the state. The Legislature does have to take this up, if only because Chapter 70 largely runs on real numbers (not averages or assumptions, with the exception of special ed).



_____________________
*I do agree that Revere has a worrying gap between their free/reduced rate and their state certified number, in that it doesn't get them to the 40% they need for CEP. What's odd to me is Worcester is about the same on free/reduced, yet does hit over 40% for direct certification. See our backup from this vote for more. 

CPPAC

Superintendent Boone:
look forward to being here in September and talk about what's exciting and connect with you
throughout the year, members of the district leadership team will be here
CPPAC expo: see programs showcased, give parents a chance to see what's going on
"Great opening of schools"
today was tenth day of school
had heat issues last week as well as this week: principals pay attention to the conditions; water available to all students;
situations in particular schools with windows being replaced
use DPH guidelines on heat and humidity: have never reached that
have had uncomfortable areas
"if we send the students home, we send them in many cases to conditions similar to where they were leaving"
very pleased with what's happening in our schools
monitoring enrollment numbers: enrollment increases after Labor Day
look at enrollment by classroom and by school
report to SC next year on general trend on enrollment
MSBA projects done this summer: West Tatnuck, Clark Street, Union Hill
windows still left to be done at Goddard being done overnight and evening
"see what a real difference that new windows and doors make"
Community Eligibility program: free lunch and breakfast to every child in WPS
encourage your children to participate in this program
balances will be refunded if you like
we are in this for several years; USDA supported
free and reduced lunch status used for many things
working on the quality of our meals; hired a chef last year to work on food quality
school safety: schools are safe
things sometimes happen in our schools
headlines in our schools unfortunately grow legs and tentacles and take a life their own
broad view of safety (as heat, above)
only shift was end of last year was deployment of police liaisons
in conversation with the national school resource officer association
they are not there as armed sentries, not as first line
support school administration when called upon
two additional officers for 7-12 schools and middle schools
"very exciting with what has happened with our liaisons"
school safety audit: review policies, practices, and procedures to see what we're doing well and where there are gaps
we have a number of steps in place
date has closed on RFPs, then reviews take place
15 of our schools (1/3) will be reviewed; schools in every segment and type
all to be reviewed
addressing safety in a broad based and authorative manner
IB school: leadership position is posted, will be named soon
International Baccalaureate program to be put in place
Still figuring out where to put it for now; affiliated with Doherty, still looking at space options
FY16: delegation aided us in returning the Quality Kindergarten grant, funding 22 of our IAs in kindergarten
balanced budget based on enrollment growth
"do we have everything we need? Absolutely not."
end of staffing that we held for enrollment
waiting for Foundation Budget Review Commission coming out in November
what will they recommend to the Governor and Legislature
"strongly urge you to stay tuned into the Foundation Budget Review Commission"
will take voice of parents to push that
Central Mass Recovery High School: opiate issue is not demographic specific
only region of the state that did not have a recovery high school was central Mass
took at long time for the state to issue the RFR
opened on August 26 the first recovery high school
students to suggest some names for the school
ribbon cutting coming this fall
"not one of those places where if you slip, we put you out"
going back into the recovery mode
a health crisis, see it across all demographics
opiate addiction through athletic injury and availability in the home
majority of students enrolled have been through organizations providing care or direct referral by families

CPPAC note: it always meets the second Wednesday of the month at 7 pm. Generally meetings are at the Worcester Public Library. For October, however, CPPAC will be hosting a forum for the candidates for School Committee, place TBA.

Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch?

NOT US!!

(click to make it bigger)

UPDATE: And what's for lunch? If you're in an elementary school without a kitchen, you'll find your menu here. All other schools, see this menu. 

Community eligibility for lunch

O'Connell asks for information about applying for grants as part of discussion
Boone: why we haven't applied as yet, state has now addressed
sent to F&O

Worcester School Committee meets this afternoon

As it is a summer meeting, please note that it starts at 4 pm. Also, it has been MOVED to the Durkin Administration building, 4th floor. You can find the agenda here.
We're starting off with a couple of recognitions: WEDF and the Worcester Cultural Coalition, and Hanover Insurance and Harkins Community Consulting.
There is no report of the superintendent.
Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports is reporting out on their June 23 meeting.
We have LOTS of congratulations and recognitions: AbbVie for the Burncoat Middle library; Nelson Place for a "Healthy Lunch for a Healthier Me" art contest win; Nelson Place for their donations to the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp; Harvard Pilgrim, for their mini-grant to Thorndyke Road; Good Sports and Snapple for athletic equipment to Doherty; and the Department of Public Health, the Community Connections summer program; the Facilities Department, and the Hector Reyes House for their work on the Joint Use Agreement.
We have a $25.00 donation from Target to accept for Tatnuck Magnet.
We have our annual item to make FY16 budget transfers as required (which will go to F&O for our quarterly reports).
We're being asked to accept a donation totally $5000 for the Healthy Start awards for the Breakfast in the Classroom schools that received the EOS awards.
Mr. O'Connell is asking to review the teacher climate survey.
He also wants to "formulate a plan for restoration of the pool at South High Community School" (which is still on top of the school's electrical plant).
Miss Ramirez is asking that we work with the administation on strategic planning and goal setting.
The administration is sending our annual audit of the student activities funds to F&O.
Mr. O'Connell wants to look at redoing the Worcester East Middle auditorium.
He also wants to look at expanding grade 6 programming at middle schools.
Mr. O'Connell also wants to schedule (another) groundbreaking for Nelson Place. Silly season, people.
The administration is sending consideration of participating in Community Eligibility to provide free lunch to all students to F&O for consideration. Good coverage of this by Scott O'Connell today.
We're being asked to accept a grant of $135,000 for early childhood work with Head Start; it will pay for two teachers and two teacher assistants for extended day and family support.
We're being asked to accept a grant of $55,940 from the Perkins Act; it looks like it's going to purchase diesel equipment for South and welding equipment at Tech.

The invisible poor

As I mentioned in passing last week, the Board of Ed is getting a presentation tomorrow from the administration on a change--as far as I can tell, it's a change? not a proposed one? they can do this unilaterally?--to the way percentage of low income is calculated for schools in Massachusetts. The Globe has an article on it today.
Currently, most districts calculate low income based on free and reduced lunch numbers. Those numbers come from the forms parents send in--which yes, are audited--as well as cross-reference from other state programs. Those are : the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Transitional Assistance for Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC); the Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) foster care program; and MassHealth (Medicaid).  Community eligibility instead uses just the information from the other programs AND, if you're a district that uses it, all students, regardless of income, receive free lunch.
Thus, CEP districts are full free lunch districts. Boston started doing this in 2013.

You may remember, when this happened, we had some discussion about why Worcester was choosing not to do it, and, to be honest, most of that hasn't really changed.

You'll find DESE's discussion of the change here. Let me say up front that I genuinely believe that their motivation is good: they want to feed more kids, and, by making lunch universal, the hope is that any lingering stigma associated with getting school lunch will be removed.

However:
This automatically decreases the number of kids being measured as in poverty. There are kids who legitimately receive free lunch now who are not receiving any of these other benefits: maybe their parents don't want to ask for help, or lack paperwork, or don't have the time to apply. There are lots of reasons why kids might have one sort of qualification and not the other. Yes, they'll have lunch now, but they won't be counted otherwise.
The memo attempts to argue that this is simply another measure--even using a new term, "economically disadvantaged"--and cautions in bold against comparing measurements:

 It is important for users of this data to understand that enrollment percentages and achievement data for “economically disadvantaged” students cannot be directly compared to “low income” data in prior years. 

And what is the first thing the Globe did?

More broadly, the data raise questions about whether some schools should be performing at higher levels if indeed they have fewer poor students than previously thought.

No, it does not. We don't have fewer poor kids; we're just counting fewer of them.

So what, beyond the above sort of nonsense (of which I am quite certain we'll see lots more), is the problem?

• This automatically cuts the foundation budget for any district with low income kids (which I believe would be all of them). There is a low income increment as part of the foundation budget; fewer kids = smaller budget. Now, DESE immediately pivots to the Foundation Budget Review Commission taking this up as part of their work. As the only mention I've heard at their meetings on this issue was a single one by the Commissioner in passing, that's...optimistic. Also, the low income increment needed to be increased, anyway, as it wasn't covering anything close to what it was supposed to; something tells me that it isn't going to be increased by both the amount it should be PLUS the amount we'll lose through the new calculation. 
• We get an airy "will provide guidance" on other grants, which is not reassuring when you're talking about cutting our eligibility.
• No one seems to be addressing federal reimbursement rate for lunches, which, at least when we last talked about this in Worcester, didn't address the real costs of the program.
• We're losing decades of comparable data on rates of poverty. You can like or not like the current way of measuring, but at least the data set was cross-comparable. Call me cold-blooded, but having a consistent measurement of how many kids are poor matters. 

 I'm concerned, to put it lightly.