About process

'Can't argue with the truth, sir.' 
'In my experience, Vimes, you can argue with anything.
Terry Pratchett, Jingo  

One of the first challenges when you move to a new place is learning how things work: who has what authority; who gets to decide what to do what; and how are those decisions made.

In my own life, it was the state's proposal to plow an airport access road through my own neighborhood at the time that sent me into learning, rapidly, how things work. Issues since then--most notably the proposal to put a slots parlor into Green Island--have been further opportunities for learning.

The same thing is true when one joins a public body: how does one get things done? What is the process? Where are the levels? And what are the things over which your public body has control and does not.
And so one learns about filing items, having subcommittee meetings with public discussions with extensive reports from administration, making decisions in public meetings within the purview of that public body.

And then we have a week like the past one...

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, October 17

The agenda is here.
I've somewhat piecemeal posted on this already: there's a response on district technology, which I wrote about here, and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is coming to present, which I noted over here.
Besides the recognitions and the administration forwarding the hirings, resignations, and retirements of staff (this looks like the opening of school list), on the agenda is:

• two approvals of executive session minutes from June and July; there are no notes on the deliberation
• a report on elementary reading materials which uses STAR and curriculuar measurements of progress 
• a copy of the Special Education cluster grant's corrective action
• a list of spring community clean ups
• a 16 page response to a request for "funding of community non-profits" which reaches back to FY17 for information; this is clearly in response to the concerns over lack of cooperation with ACE and other immigrant groups, and...there's some migration
• a response on stipends to athletic coaches
• a response to propose teaching cursive in 3rd grade 
• a result of surveying the schools on lightpole banners (I don't think they understood the question?)
• a list of the first date of fire drills
• three partial responses to the fourteen action items passed with the superintendent's contract renewal; of note, the first response calls for PD on "understanding cultural differences, unconscious bias, understanding racial disparities, and trauma informed care for all staff. Included in this training is MGL c222 for all staff including School Committee" while the response speaks only of trauma care. The review of Ch. 222, as was noted by the Lawyers for Civil Rights and the City Lab at Worcester State University at last week's presentation, does not appear to be resulting in the district observing it districtwide. 

There are two prior year payments: $4,659.53 to Stetson School Inc. for services rendered from June 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019 and $84,985.56 to The Learning Center for the Deaf for services rendered from July 2018 to June 2019.
There is a request to approve the following donations:–

• $300.00 to the George and Marie Maloney Scholarship Fund from various donors
• $10,000 to Rice Square Elementary School for the Seena Levy Reading Fund from Steven & Andrew Levy in memory of their mother, Seena, former 2nd grade reading teacher at Rice Square Elementary School. The donation is intended for the purchase of books for the Rice Square library.
• $320.00 to Worcester Technical High School from the Greater Worcester Community Foundation/Thurston E. Solomon & Everett J. Morter Memorial Fund designated for the Skills USA Program.
• $560.00 to Worcester Technical High School from the Greater Worcester Community Foundation/Saul A. Seder Fund designated for participation in the Skills USA.
• $5,985.00 to Worcester Technical High School from the Greater Worcester Community Foundation/Sarah Daniels Pettit & William O. Pettit, Jr. Fund.
• $40.55 to the Worcester Public Schools from a donor

Miss Biancheria and Mr. Monfredo request "that the Administration investigate ways to market the accomplishments of the Worcester Public Schools by more media press releases and by encouraging schools to forward outstanding events taking place at their schools to the media."
They also want the district to look for more parking.
Also, information on sex trafficking
And, a report on Worcester Tech's evening courses
And, a report on "collaboration between the unions and the Worcester Public Schools in the formulation and execution of various articulation agreements that lead to the awarding of certificates to the students "

Mr. Comparetto and Mr. Monfredo are requesting reports on wraparound services, school health clinics, Family Resource Centers, and Mr. Comparetto further requests a homeless liaison, wraparound coordinators at all schools, a CityConnects program, and policy forums on homelessness.

Did I mention that the DESE department coming out to do the report is the same department that does the Comprehensive District Review that observed and called out the requests for reports from School Committee members, how time intensive they were, and how much they were entirely not concerned with the central work of district governance? It is. 

There is a request to approve nurses.

There is a 6 pm Executive Session for litigation with Steamfitters and Tradesmen.

Yes, I'll be there. Blog to come

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. 

Parking at May Street

O'Connell: look at the issue and try to do something for May Street and work with Temple Emanuel
talk to city officials, and Worcester State officials
city to take some innovative steps
Worcester State proactive and cooperative
some flexibility to have the May Street
hold the item for the next meeting, so close to having the solution
give that plan a chance to be fleshed out over the next few weeks
Foley: glad Mr. O'Connell modified his referral
needs a much longer discussion
"we have no jurisdiction on this"
work with City Manager, May Street, Worcester State, work on equitable solution
an awful lot going on around there
make sure the superintendent has our endorsement on working to go forward
Petty: CM quipped that he had a plan and no one wanted to hear it
Biancheria: give credit to our city manager
have a number of schools that have parking issues
take our best ideas and use at other sites

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday!

...and we have my favorite report of the year: the Opening of School Report! (The backup on this isn't up yet; I'll link to it once it is.)
The agenda is here.
We have another round of the back-to-school hiring reports!
City Solicitor Moore is letting us know that, though Council talks about it frequently, he doesn't have a recent report on the legality of hiring with a preference for Worcester residents.
Mr. Monfredo wants to recognize South High for being on Channel 5.
Mr. O'Connell is re-opening the discussion about parking around May Street School (specifically, around what was Temple Emanuel and now is owed by Worcester State).
I've asked that we consider supporting Senator Moore's Senate Bill 321, regarding the chartering of charter schools.
Mr. O'Connell wants to congratulate our AFL-CIO scholarship winners.
Mr. Monfredo wants to celebrate World Smile Day.
Miss Biancheria is suggesting we implement the Army of Saints curriculum and the Reach Out and Read program in WPS.
We're being asked to approve a prior year payment of $55.20.
And we're sending the School Committee section of the policy manual to Governance for our consideration.

Starts at 7 pm!

Coda

And I believe that today's T&G editorial, Dianne Williamson column, and this Bizarro McGrath rewrite of the classic "Monorail" bit from The Simpsons marks a coda on Chandler Magnet having 800 spaces of parking on their field.
Keep paying attention, though.

And thanks, Bizarro: I'll take the Marge Simpson part anytime!

Email from the City Manager and WSU statement regarding Chandler Magnet

I have just received the following from the City Manager:

Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, Dr. Boone and School Committee Members,

As word of efforts to resolve the parking issues in the neighborhood surrounding Worcester State University is becoming public, I am writing to assure you it has been my intention from the beginning to provide the community with the opportunity to hear the concept of this plan in its entirety at a public forum.  This public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday,  April 1^st where all will be able to provide input and ask questions. I would hope folks would wait to hear all aspects of this proposal before taking a position. The hearing will be held at the Chandler Magnet School at 6:00 p.m. 

---------------------------------

Also, Worcester State has issued the following statement:

As City Manager Ed Augustus has publicly stated, the process fordeciding potential future uses of city-owned land adjacent to Chandler Magnet School is just beginning; no decisions have been made. The city has scheduled an open forum for Wednesday, April 1 at 6 p.m. at the Chandler Magnet School, where the city's plan will be presented and concerns heard. Worcester State University looks forward to collaborating with the city in developing a holistic approach to the area parking and related traffic issues that we and our neighbors face.

Chandler Magnet field to parking?

Let me preface this by saying that I am going to be more neutral in my language in this post than I actually feel. As this will (probably) come to the School Committee floor for deliberation, I need to be careful about not pre-deliberating outside of a posted, public forum.

Though nothing official has yet been posted or discussed in a public forum, the city is requesting that the Worcester School Committee declare as surplus the field behind Chandler Magnet School. For those not familiar with the area, this field is at the end of Moore and Ashmore Streets, which are off of Pleasant; it also is accessible from the back of Chandler Magnet School. The field is about 15 acres.

The proposal is that the land would then become a Worcester State parking lot, either by the city leasing the land or selling the land to a developer. It would be about 800 parking spaces.

In return, the school would get a playground, and both Chandler Magnet and May Street Schools would be granted parking on Worcester State properties (respectively adjoining their schools).

Relatedly, Worcester State would install turf on the back field at Rockwood Field playground (behind the Jesse Burkett fields), and this would be for park and school use during non-Worcester State times.

A few things to note:

• while the Worcester School Committee was briefed in small (and yes, non-quorum) groups, this was presented as a deal worked out without consultation with us.
• this will come down to a vote of the Worcester School Committee
• the declaration of surplus requires a vote of a majority (updated per 30B) of the full committee. As Ms. Ramirez works for Worcester State and thus has a conflict, she will not, as I understand it, be able to vote. It will take four votes (a simple majority) to dispose of the property.

Should you have questions, send them along.

And the best people to weigh in with on this right now is the Worcester School Committee. It's our decision. I would also recommend weighing with Councilor Gary Rosen, who is the district councelor for this neighborhood. You can find our and Councilor Rosen's contact information to the right. You may also be interested in Nicole's post and in this petition.

The above is taken directly from my notes from the meeting I was in with the City Manager, Mayor, and Superintendent on Thursday, February 5 at 4:30.
I should also point out that Chandler Magnet has a student body that is (as of our October 1 count) 88.1% low income, 71% Latino, and 63% ELL. 

Nelson Place Public Hearing (Feasibility)

Meeting tonight for a public hearing on schematic design. The presentation is up online here.
Posting as we go! You can click to make images bigger.

Julie Lynch: Feasibility Study for Nelson Place; in the third stage for that; Preferred Schematic Report completed.
now going through introductions
Overview of concerns from public, then schedule (if project approved), then progress made over summer, then Q&A

Reminder that School Building Committee update October 27; Meeting and vote December 8

Part of presentation to MSBA will be budget as well as project, "That's the number we have to stay with" once the project is approved

two level plan for 600 students, 100 staff + 20 staff visitors
"since we have last met, we have met in a lot of detail with the school and the school administrators...think we really have a plan that meets the program and a lot of what we have talked about in the past"
single entrance with central lobby with cafeteria and gym and librarynext to it; both accessible after hours, with rest of building able to be locked off
lower floor 5th and 6th grade looking over western side
upper floor 1st and 2nd grade with upper level
"school did feel it meets their program...feel that's important to know"
review site plan, next to neighborhood, answer questions you had the last time

went to ConCom a month and a half; wetland area was deliniated and bounded as flagged
test pits and test borings in August
geologic similar to maps from the 50's; ledge depths are much deeper than we had thought THUS LESS BLASTING

bus drop-off reoriented closer to street
main access now aligned with Nelson Drive (?); two exits
secondary access in back; minimizing width with wider cleared space
minizing land taking at Hapgood; land taking and land giving based on "sheer geometry of site" at upper entrance

Looking at cladding that allows exterior of building to go up very quickly, take down gymnasium; move kids into new building; demolish old building and landscaping

parking during construction: "city is entertaining 'construction manager at risk'...parking off site...once parking lot down, front area for play, parking behind the building, teachers and staff also parking off-site"

scheduling things to minimize noise; "obviously, you're all in the backyard, and that is noted"

Q: make-up air unit? (fresh air exchange) location of boiler. Try to minimize heat leaving the building

energy recovery units? yes, with all the major units. Some of work-up showing numbers similar to buildings considered net zero

Q: access road? Paving material? Haven't decided yet. Probably going ot be asphalt, haven't decided yet. Lighting? Plowing? Concerns about safety, possibly lighting; plowing will have to happen. Met with security consultant. Request for zero to no lighting on the access road, 100% permeable surface. "very difficult to operate in this climate" suggestion for grasscrete (which is, to editorialize for a moment, totally possible). Looking like there will be bollards to block off the road most of the time (that can be run over by a fire truck)

Q: will this building be a parking lot? Yes, part of it. People didn't want to see a sea of parking.

Suggestion that access road has low lighting (like a movie theater); would light pathway and be less intrusive

Q: could parking be moved around to front? Responding to neighborhood concerns in not having a sea of cars. Response that neighbors would rather see that than more trees come down.

This enables larger play space, "not just for schools but for the community"

Ledge? Can't speak to exactly where, will be some blasting on the site, geotechnic engineer very experienced. Pre-blast survey includes current building, including screwjacks and etc

Q: when blasting is done, students here? Try to do off-hours...."wouldn't speculate one way or another...will depend on where blasting is being done"

Q: structural safety of building during blasting? Still being monitored, assured that building in current condition is safer than it was built originally; other monitors brought in as well

Q: Radon? Worcester has high radon...underslab ventilation in place with vents on the roof. City View, Worcester Tech, North...have that...already in budget

Q: land on Hapgood? City asked to mitigate taking. Also space between driveway and backyards? moved up, "I'm going to guess, 40 feet" also "we don't have to take all that property and keep it...trying to mitigate as much as we can"

a bit of a back-and-forth here about specifics on visiblity, plantings...

Request that the back parking lot be reconsidered "That's trees and animals that are never going to come back" Looked again at parking regulations; less than half of what would normally be provided for a school building; more in keeping with green building "don't want to pave any more than we have to, either"

Q: an incentive to meet schedule? "Time is money" Also Owners Project Manager keeping track and on schedule

Q: cut and fill analysis? Yes, really rough "50,000 yards cut and fill...roughly equal" Q: how many truck trips? Hoping to keep much of material on site. Hope to reuse a lot of it

Q: are you required to have that access road? My understanding is not. Request that you leave that out. Is result of security consultant "in wake of Sandy Hook" for another access besides front access and beyond Assumption access (oh, for Pete's sake)

grade incline on back access road? Steep, is short version

Argument that the back road is unnecessary, also opens up to more use of woods, possibly by Assumption

Q: drainage? water flowing through wetlands from one to another. "No the two wetlands are absolutely not connected in any way or form...isolated land subject to flooding" No increase in post-flows than previous conditions. Underground detention system installed. Will look to file with ConCom next spring with detailed numbers. 

Concern about current flooding already; blacktop increase leading to increase in waterflow (this at upper end of property running down onto and across Nelson Place Road now; bet it was a stream before we had houses here)

back and forth here about who sees the parking and who doesn't

Response that some schools bigger schools have less parking (to which the response is, 'and it's a big problem')

walking path along top of wall along Nelson Place (with fence along top if needed)

Q: could Hapgood get sidewalks? Not part of scope of work, but yes, good idea. DPW points out abutters would pay for sidewalk. 

Q: Construction access? Probably along current gym. 

Q: Roof? Partly flat (with solar panels) and sloped in parts for "charm" "significant portion of flat roof"

Long warranties on roofs installed on city buildings

And that's it

Nelson Place public hearing liveblog!

posting as we go...full house in the school cafeteria
Second phase of feasibility
presentation, then questions and comments
"huge document with the school and the city and some neighbors...what is important to the school?"
Presented (it was?)
"come to one solution, put to a vote of the building committee, submit to MSBA" (if approved by the building committee)

current reading submitted written comments from Safe Routes to School: "prioritize vehicle access...will not encourage families to consider access by foot or bike"
Presentation is here 
"more thought should be put into safe and convenient access by those walking and biking"
Owner project manager reviewing timeline: note that if all goes as expected, construction would be Sept 2015-March 2017
Architects: "lot of input in the design project"
inner workings of how this is designed: why school has the wings it does, the contiguity it does
sustainable design...part of the study that we're putting together tonight
site program plans on 140 daily parking spaces, with 200 event parking spaces
substantially separate bus and car lines
plan of 60 car lineup for parent pickup
"also the biking and the walking traffic to the school is in the mix"
wetlands on site
"isolated land subject to flooding" on site
biologists have been up there three times and "have found that they are not vernal pools" (which is met with audience disbelief)
"one is non-juristictional, so there are no setbacks with that"
"we had looked at number of different sites throughout the city"
look at three options at Nelson Place location (there are no off-site options): Assumption option has fallen off
now just looking at right of way on Assumption land and taking land from neighbors for access
Renovation (which must be studied) : retain existing building from cafeteria up the road (newest piece)
with three story new construction behind the existing building
parking and access roads to the property line
new construction on existing
parking lot in front on current site (ish..behind)
three wings off central section
"this scheme does not meet site programs"
"you do not have full parent pick up, and do not have parking areas needed, and retaining walls"
new construction on additional land
rear land of house lots taken
small courtyard in the middle
two, two story sections with one story admin section
multiple parking lots in front
"there are no setbacks
easterly one has a 15 and 30 foot setback (for building and paving); no setback on the westerly one (which means that they can built right up to the edge of the water)
bit of a back and forth here on which are vernal pools; Assumption has vernal pools on their lands; neighborhood concern regarding wetlands on the property
last plan has a back access to Romula for emergency
coming and going to school is still off of Nelson Place? Yes, though biking and walking could come through.
as another option, "costing out" parking deck (aka: a parking garage in front of the school)
another scheme that arranges parent pick up differently
Q on why so much parking; essentially trying to get all cars off the street
June 2 building committee to select one of these to move ahead with schematic design
Q why was plan with Assumption taken off the table? If not talking about field, why are not still talking to college about taking their property?
aside from Romula, building up the hill
"Hoping to get feedback from everyone here as to which scheme they like best and move forward from there"
Q why two tiered parking?
one option looked at, to take away from surfacing parking
Q do people have to look at it?
"significant amount of landscaping, significant cost to build structure"
Q amount of blasting
the answer here is basically, yes, it's ledge
"design a blasting program" to excavate
Q "still only one way out and one way in" to the school
some parking comments here "that's to be expected when you live in the space of a school"
"at the time that we designed Roosevelt , we weren't facing these issues of parent pick up that we are now, but times they are a' changing...we can't deny parents that"
response "This property was never meant for a super school"
DPW going to do work on Nelson Place road for widening
reference to parents waiting all the way down onto 122: "you should find another location"
suggestion for multiple story, smaller footprint
"you've said you can't stop it...you can by design"
catchment area? Indian Hill and Nelson Place...response is that kids can walk
DPW: no crossing guard on 122 (hey, we can do that!)
Suggestion to talk to Assumption to allow through traffic for student drop off
"to facilitate and be part of a neighborhood" not overwhelm the neighborhood
Response: like parking all the way around the building
description of dismissal of Nashoba (900 students)
concern about Deborah Drive and Nelson Park Drive (which is the little loop across the school); access and parking in front of those houses
"reality of it when you live here, is streets are always going to have this parking situation"
Response: Don't support any plan that involves any of the land taking. Not just property values, it's the green space, identified as a Top Ten green space
DPW: would you rather see, visually a 12 foot high retaining wall at the school?
concern about safety, due to visual lines to wings of school by administration
though most of our schools don't have that, so...
Q about best access: description of barriers with alarms
Neighbor sees back access as being more than emergency access in the back eventually
personal opinion of DPW is that Assumption property cannot be graded for field
concern that opening the road will make that field more easily developed; couldn't it be a trail?
Norrback, Roosevelt, Gates Lane have access to a major street; Nelson Place does not
site not appropriate for size of school being suggested
"we know you need a new school...it's just where it goes"
concern with dismissing kids into the Hancock Hill neighborhood on Hapgood because there are no sidewalks
DPW is "considering construction access" from Hapgood Road
Q why is Hapgood the only access you've got?
you've got Hancock Hill; which does not allow commercial vehicles, so they're stuck on Hapgood
suggestion that DPW might waive regulation banning commercial traffic on Hancock Hill
comment "I've never seen a school that isn't in the front of the school" where the school doesn't face the street (Norrback, North, Roosevelt...)
Q any thought of moving kids out to build?
don't have swing space within WPS; modular classrooms are expensive
suggestion could construct on current school location if students were moved out during construction
monitoring of blasting at site and on nearby location
times of construction? 7-3 (or so)
Q has anyone considered construction traffic and state of roads?
yes, but we're not there yet
comment that it seems as if the city is moving ahead with one of these options, regardless
"why am I here? What if I say I really don't want to give my land up? My saying it means nothing!"
"we don't want this thing happening"
start blasting next to a building that's shored up with kids in it
DPW says building is "safer now than it was when it was built"
don't really know what the cost is going to be when blasting is going on, as opposed to fixed costs
"it seems as though some options have come off the table" that could be useful
Q is if the building committee is here; most of them are
DPW comment that they aren't touching the wetlands
concern about moving children for building being disruptive, should that be something that happens
"want to give school department the best school we can"
advantage of traffic movement to allow limited staff to monitor dismissal of kids
"to enable kids to get in and out"
current school population is 502; building for 600
comment: "if we're going to build all of these roads, let's really get tough with speeding"
playground access and noise (they're all in the back)
suggestion faculty parking elsewhere: off site or at Assumption
plan is already to have faculty park in whatever are the spaces that are farther away
urging to plan school such that parking is not the focus; walking should be
"just seems that this is being forced on us, relative to the footprint"
"it's wrong and it needs to be addressed...it's a neighborhood school"
"seems like this was designed in an office somewhere and dropped down on the neighborhood"
comment (again) that looked at other sites
school department "has some pretty complex requirements, and it's plainly amazing to me that they can do it in the facilities that they have" (DPW)
opening a footpath on the back opens traffic to another area (like at Norrback)
comment: technically they are historic building: "I'm just disappointed to see that taken off the table"
some quibble as to if parents would drop off kids at other end of property (they not only would; they already do)
some question as to where buses would be directed and flow through; it depends on which plan goes forward, but plan is to get buses off the road, all cars off the road, and no overlap of traffic
Q: where did the number 140 parking come from?
120 faculty and staff; plus 20 visitors during the day
Principal comments currently no handicapped parking at the school
currently 40 parking spaces on site; 65 staff members
increase in staff due to changes in programming, addition in programming
comment that schools were built without kitchens at one point; we try to do better now
architect that there is minor footprint savings by having it go up another story
plan of traffic is in Ashland; separating cars and buses
And that's it. Vote is June 2, 7 pm, at the school. 

Governance and Employee Issues meets tomorrow at 4!

The Standing Committee on Governance and Employee Issues (Monfredo, Biancheria, Foley) meets tomorrow at 4 pm at the administration building. You can find the agenda here.
And it's a full one!
We're doing some new year cleaning of house: filing the item on bushes at the DAB parking lot (which, thanks to some good work from school facilities and a grant from the Nathaniel Wheeler foundation, is now fixed up nicely!) and on the library parking lot (which for now, appears to not be disappearing under a hockey rink). We're also awaiting a response from DESE on out-of-school suspensions.
We have an extensive answer on the establishment of Title I Parent Advisory Council (no Council as yet, though).
We have a response on the continued lack of civil service examinations for custodians.
We also have up for consideration several items before the state legislature:

• House Bill 512, which essentially says "Hey, we send you (at the state) lots of reports! Do you really need them all?" and establishes a commission to look at that.
• House Bill 414, which would restore the authority of School Committees to review and approve School Improvement Plans (we had this authority, but the Legislature removed it)
• Senate Bill 222, which would give charter schools reimbursement for special ed students based on students that they actually serve (something, as noted by the administration, that is not extended to public districts, and thus would advantage the charter schools. Also note extremely rare credit where credit is due on the 2005 rewrite of the charter reimbursement formula).

Gates Lane parking

14 spaces leased in parking lot across the street
we have over 120 staff that work in the building; we have less than 75 parking spaces
Gates Lane hosts an autism program, with many parents in and out of the building
these are not foreign invaders, these are parents and WPS staff that are parking the neighborhood
owe them a defense of access to their school
Motion to ask for notification whenever parking is limited around a school

Councilor Eddy: questions

Eddy: are we achieving the goals that we want to?
"are we making progress?...moving forward, making progress"
Boone: "making progress primarily due to the way that we approach the budget"
"finding ourselves getting close to the end of being able to reprogram the same dollars"
Eddy: "continue to make progress"
Gates Lane School: "had come up here repeatedly"
parking impact on the neighborhood Note that we are paying $14,000 for 14 parking spaces across the street. 
Boone: schools built without parking areas; issues that we face in most of those schools
planning and design for other schools: too difficult to do it later
nearly impossible to address after the fact
"very large school on a very large footprint"
adequate parking was not planned
other schools: what are creative ways for parking? ...no property around schools to create parking
work with neighborhoods for least disruption
don't have a solution
Eddy: will school budget include funding for Gates Lane parking in the fall
Boone: working to carry forward

Letter to City Council regarding parking at the Worcester Public Library

Thanks to my colleague Brian O'Connell for writing this excellent letter to the City Council regarding parking at the library:

Last Thursday, the Worcester School Committee voted (item gb #3-98)“to ask that the City Council, in addressing the Downtown Master Plan, preserve the current parking lot behind the Worcester Public Library, for the benefit and well-being of the citizens – and especially of the children of Worcester – who depend on the library.” This resolution passed by majority vote; a second motion, to ask that the plan assure "appropriate" parking to meet the needs of the library, passed unanimously.

As a school system, we work to develop, and to enhance, the literacy skills of our students. Parallel to this, we try to develop in our students a life-long enjoyment of reading, and of learning. The Worcester Public Library is essential to both, especially for our students who have limited financial resources, and language skills. The library, in turn, must be readily accessible to them, and to all citizens who call upon its resources, its technology, and its meeting facilities to make Worcestera community and center of lifelong learning.

The McGrath parking lot is vital to this ready access. As demand for downtown parking increases, this lot becomes progressively more essential in providing our students, and their parents, a safe, convenient, ready, secure and comfortable means of visiting the library, especially during evenings. More distant and/or limited parking – together with construction of a facility which will aggravate demand for parking in the library area – represents a significant detriment to library use, especially by the young people and their families who, because of limited resources, depend upon it most.

The lot is, at present, the “highest and best use” of its land – a community investment in learning, and a statement of the value Worcesteraccords to education and to knowledge. I urge you to leave the parking lot – and the ready access to our library which it provides – undisturbed as you deliberate the future of our theatre district, and or our downtown.

Thank you for your consideration.

Brian O’Connell

Vice Chair

Worcester School Committee

Library access

I'll do a full post, per usual, later this week on our agenda, but this piece is a bit more time sensitive.

Coming up on our agenda this Thursday is the following item:

(March 13, 2013) 
To ask that the City Council, in addressing the Downtown Master Plan, preserve the current parking lot behind the Worcester Public Library, for the benefit and well-being of the citizens – and especially of the children of Worcester – who depend on the library.

Several of us have been following with concern the theater district master planning process, including, as it does, the Worcester Public Library. Easy access to the public library is absolutely necessary for Worcester Public School students, and the question of the possible sale of the library parking lot for other use (possibly indoor ice skating rinks) is very concerning.
If you're just hearing of this now, you can do a quick catch up over on Nicole's blog, as she's been following it (and liveblogging much of it) since the beginning. When the plan came before the Council last week, the item was held by Councilor Eddy under personal privilege; it appears as item 15b on this week's agenda.
If you'd like to know why, Nick Kotsopoulos does an excellent job in yesterday's column dissecting the process and presenting alternate ways for such a process to actually include the public in a meaningful way.

If this at all concerns you, here's the deal: Councilor Eddy's hold under privilege only lasts for a week. The Council has to do something with it tomorrow night. At this point, they can do four things:

1. They can send the report on to Economic Development (the subcommittee that will hear this).
2. They can hold the report for another week. That would take four councilors to vote in favor of the hold, at this point, as a personal privilege hold can only be done once per item per Councilor.
3. They can send the report back to administration (as Nicole urged them to do last week) to incorporate public comment (or redo the process so that it begins from public comment).
4. They can file the item, which is a nice way of saying, they can toss it out.

In order for anything unusual to happen, the Council needs to hear from the public. Thus, should you have any concerns about access to the parking lot (or, indeed, any other aspects of the plan), you should get in touch with the Council. 

Better yet, there is a time for public testimony at the beginning of every Council meeting: attend tomorrow night's meeting at 7 pm at City Council and voice your concerns.

Believe it or not...

Regarding this request coming out of the City Council's Committee on Traffic and Parking:

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC AND PARKING - Request Superintendent of Worcester Public Schools plan to incorporate sufficient off-street parking into any future plans for public school construction; whether that be new construction, renovation, extensive rehabilitation or expansion.

Councilors, you in fact have significantly more control over this than you think.

You need not make a request of the Superintendent.
You can make such a request of the Department of Public Works.

The DPW builds schools in Worcester, not the WPS.

Informational on net school spending: here's the discussion

Here's the discussion on the recommended allocation of the $500,000 transfer
O'Brien: leadership working with the manager and the school department, to address the capital needs of our schools
Thanks the Manager "to leverage out a few more dollars"
Councilors, textbooks and instructional materials,
"making progress towards that gap...a little behind but we're catching up"
"continue to work towards...an operational plan that we all can get behind"
Economou: echo same sentiments, Say thank you
"step in the right direction"
Eddy: "indeed a step in the right direction"
Manager "has worked tirelessly with the superintendent"
parking lot lease in Webster Square (murmurs from Lukes)
Long been aware of the issue on Holland Road, Monticello, Wentworth, "held hostage in their homes"
"at some point...thank Tom Zidelis...far too many man hours working with Brian Allen in the school department for a solution on this...expensive bandaid...speaks to...public schools have to take... responsibilities of the public schools fall beyond the walls of the schools...being a good neighbor...cannot build schools that do not have parking"
(I should perhaps point out that the City, not the schools, build schools)
Urges Mayor to bring back to schools...going on far too long
look at field behind school (which is a park)
held it waiting for a permanent solution
motion to no parking on Holland Road during school days: need to have a public hearing, says mayor
O'Brien thinks there has been a hearing
Eddy pulls motion, sends to committee
Toomey: look back at orders not completed on this, all addressed at same time
Russell: question to administration
annual salary or half the year?
The answer is half the year, but no one knows. 

sorry, no idea what Palmieri said
CM O'Brien: amazing learning environment
buffered against our fiscal condition
that's why the move was conservative to put those dollars into contingency
Mayor has a style that I respect greatly
how we can structure these dollars
wasn't a week that went by when it wasn't an agenda item

Lukes: going back to parking lot lease
and then to initial reference to the item
"if parking lots qualify for net school spending, I'd be shocked"
how many schools are going to want the same?
footprint larger for same number of students, losing parking as a result
"this issue is one that's going to plague us with any new school"
people in that neighborhood want the school built in the same location
"for that half hour at each end of the day, it's like the end of the world"
"I would suggest that we find other solutions to this problem"

O'Brien: sure that this does not set a precedent, as there are others

Economou: in light of tonight's discussion: February 25 at 5 pm, Holland Road before Traffic and Parking

Petty: no real short term solution to parking problem
thanks Allen and Zidelis for working to fix the problem

Governance and Employee Issues meeting tomorrow

There is a meeting of the Governance and Employee Issues standing committee tomorrow afternoon at 3 pm at the Durkin Administration Building, and they have a very full agenda:

• There's another step in the review of the proposed social media policy (if you work for or have kids in WPS, you might take a look).
• We're dealing with a concern from the Crown Hill Neighborhood Association regarding the loss of trees (due to storm) in the parking lot on Chatham Street (across the street from the Durkin Administration Building).
• There's a review of the safety policies on playground equipment.
• Also, questions on middle school email distribution lists, funding of kindergarten for four-year-olds, MASC resolutions, and federal proposed laws.

with apologies for the lack of posts

...as I have been flat on my back with the flu since last week... 
There is (so far)  a meeting of the Worcester School Committee tonight at 7 pm at Worcester Technical High School. You will find the agenda here.
On tonight's agenda: a presentation of three schools who will be submitting innovation plans. Worcester Technical High, Lincoln Street, and Worcester East Middle Schools are presenting tonight. There is, as yet, no backup (and we haven't gotten the plans yet).
Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports had a meeting on Tuesday, and the report is coming back from that meeting. That report includes debate teams, BMI, cell phone use in school, and gym class.
There wasn't actually an F&O meeting this week; it was postponed by Mr. Foley because I was sick. 
We've got two requests coming in from City Council (wow, and they never send us stuff): one for a master plan, and one for negotiating parking for Gates Lane School.
We've been told by the DPW that the garage at City Hall won't be done until late April. Expect to see some action on that one.
A number of requests going off to committee: revising graduation to align with MassCore, creating descriptions of the standing committees, asking for a report on MCAS appeals, looking into a virtual school, and creating a policy on remote participation by members. Oh, and should we look into that empty space at St. Peter-Marian?
Also, some recognitions: those who won the essay and art contest honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. and a Girls Inc. scholarship winner. (Those are not happening tonight; we're passing items.)

Starts at 7!
 

Community comment: school buildings

On South High Community:
These from Farrell, Nystrom, Shea, and Wynja
We see that South was built in 1978, but 150 kids in 6 classrooms in one room
"doing a disservice to all of them"
tough to "pick up a second language when 15 other people are talking"
kids learn from novelty; open classroom arrangement forces teachers to be "limited in novelty and movement"
from a parent: "what my kids say at home [is] it does not get easier, they do not get used to it"
"they deserve a room with walls"
"on an hourly bases [I] have at least three students who wish they had walls"
kids "have a thirst to learn...need to know that this is a place that they can learn"
they "kind of feel like they're the bottom of the barrel"
about tonight's meeting, asked "why is it at Doherty; why isn't it here?"

On Doherty Memorial High:
even when first built, was "not ever big enough to accommodate" the population
issues of parking, the cafeteria
"never have had athletic fields" to play at home
district basketball can't play at home
need to consider "the footprint we are on: is this a big enough space?"

Also, Mr. Scott raised concerns about environmental impacts on children's health