Where does Worcester fall in funding education?

These is a repost of charts that I had up in March. Given the current conversation (and the growing outcry) around the city's funding of the Worcester Public Schools, I thought it would be useful. Click to make them bigger.
This first one compares how much Worcester funds over the minimum for public education compared to other Gateway cities. Worcester is in red. The state average of 15% over foundation is in yellow.

Also note that due to Worcester funding under foundation for the past two years, the chart goes down to -10.

 Because it's a bit difficult to see at the end of the first chart, here, scaled from 1.5% to -0.2, is Worcester's contribution above foundation from FY03 to FY12.

As per always, all numbers taken from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education website.

Structural reaction to a cyclical problem

Colleen Fahy :"the city never gave more than 1% above minimum"
"structural reaction to a cyclical problem"
"when four years of math is an unaffordable program"
"Historically, we haven't seen this reciprocity we're hearing about going around the table"

Notes from CPPAC: finished!

(CPPAC, for those of you without a running list of abbreviations in your head, is the Citywide Parent Planning Advisory Council. In theory, every school has two representatives to this body; in practice, many parents, even those active in PTO's, have never heard of it. It meets on the first Tuesday of the month at 7 pm at the downtown library, and all parents, in fact all community members, are welcome to attend.)

Two numbers jumped out at me from a length presentation by Judy Thompson (who head the Child Study office):

• 65% of Worcester public school students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. That's last year's number; it's expected to be higher this year.
• 10% of Worcester public school students are homeless (by McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act standards, which include kids in foster care and in transitional housing). That is September's number.

I don't know that there's anything to add to that but "wow."


The Curriculum Subcommittee of the School Committee is waiting for a report back from the Administration on requiring four years of math in the Worcester Public Schools.

There's hope that we'll have hired a new superintendent by the end of the week. We're "getting some language straightened out."

And, here's something to look forward to: the Worcester Public School's contract with teachers expires in August. Negotiations, here we come!

Readiness project misses

UPDATED:
There have been a slew of letters to the Boston Globe regarding the Readiness Project. We'll see about getting some links up to those over the next day or so.

The O Jornal (not a mistype; it's not an English word) points out one hole to the report: English Language Learners.

State Representative Antonio F.D. Cabral (D-New Bedford) was not surprised by the lack of vision; however, he was disappointed.
"We cannot have a 10-year readiness project without including those students statewide that have suffered in terms of transition to English because of the present law," said Cabral. "Call it full immersion, bilingual, those students must be part of the debate. When legislation is submitted, certainly that issue will have to be discussed."

You'll remember that we have many of them in Worcester. As those children require resources (there was some discussion at last week's School Committee meeting regarding translators, for example), this is a topic that warrants attention. The percentage statewide of students who speak English as a second language is 15%. According to the DOE foundation calculations, in Worcester, 28% of Pre-K students are English language learners and 18.6% of K-12. That's a lot of kids. That matters to Worcester.
(thanks, Colleen, for finding the Worcester numbers!)

Percent over foundation budget

Our math wizard says it's 100.7%

The long budget cycle finally gets to Nick Kotsopoulos

As one who's been putting in some time myself following all the ins and outs of the budget, I sympathize, Mr. Kotsopoulos, I really do.
But in the haze of who had done what this week, you called this one wrong.

In his Sunday column, Mr. Kotsopoulos writes:

Well, on the same night it unanimously approved a line item in the public school budget that will fund a 52 percent pay raise for board members as of July 1, some members said they want to see the School Department get 50 percent of future new revenues received by the city.

What left people scratching their heads, though, is the fact that the City Council is considering giving 100 percent of “new revenues” ($250,000) the city will be realizing because the Massachusetts Port Authority is picking up a bigger share of Worcester Regional Airport’s operating deficit.

Oh, by the way, those school board members want 100 percent of those “new revenues” and 50 percent of future new city revenues.

Mr.Kotsopoulos was not at this meeting (readers might recall this happened during Thursday's budget hearing); he may of course have watched it broadcast on cable. His colleague Jacqueline Reis was there and filed an article, leading with the pay raise, in Friday's paper.

A motion was made by Mr. Monfredo for a 50/50 split. Such a split has been done, just for one example, in Boston, as well as other communities concerned about how schools are falling behind in funding. It's not exactly a radical notion.

As it happens, this motion was voted down, Mr. Monfredo himself being the only vote in favor. I was told after the meeting that the concern was exactly that which is mention above: as the School Committee is hoping that the City Council will forwarded the excess airport funding to the education budget, they feel this isn't the time to ask for the 50/50 split.

Even beyond this breakdown in facts (okay, he didn't say that this motion passed, but basing his entire article around it certainly implies something of the kind, does it not?), the tone of this column is just dismaying:
the members of that elected body put the arm on the City Council to jack up the city’s contribution to the public school budget
No, Mr. Kotsopoulos, they requested additional funds.They didn't stick up the City Council in an alley; they passed a motion, way back in the spring. As, regrettably, the School Committee has no authority to raise funds on its own, they have no choice but to ask the City Council for the funds.
On the 102%:
Instead, some continue to bicker about the city’s contribution rate. They contend that when all is said and done, the manager’s budgetary action only provides for 100.5 percent of the foundation budget, not 103 percent, as suggested by the city manager or the 102 percent they had pushed for.
Now, surely, Mr. Kotsopoulos has been at any number of meetings in which this was clearly explained (I know I have been!): this isn't some number that Brian Allen over in the school finance office gets to make up. The state, that is, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Department of Education takes our numbers (how much do we spend on teachers' salaries? utilities? school supplies? etc.) and they determine how much of the foundation budget we are funding. There is a widely circulated list which shows what community gives what percent to education. How does it look when Worcester contributes far less than Fall River, New Bedford, Boston? We are among the very lowest in the state on this. The state average is 114%; we will be at 100.5% next year. That doesn't look good for those of us who live here, and it certainly doesn't encourage people to move here. We want this number to be higher. We can only make it higher by giving more city money to schools.

Where Mr. Kotsopoulos' sudden frustration with the School Committee and retirees has come from, I don't know. Neither group is new in making requests of the City Council, 'though in both cases, the voices have been louder and more organized this year. And surely this is precisely what citizens are to do during budget hearings: express their priorities. Perhaps they aren't shared by Mr. Kotsopoulos. That doesn't make them illegitimate.

Last round this afternoon

The last round of budget hearings are this afternoon at 4pm.
An article in this morning's Telegram & Gazette local section points out that the education funding debate isn't quite settled:

But some advocacy groups contend that the city needs to increase its share of new monies for education to a level that is 102 percent of the current year. They contend that new city money in the budget approved for the public schools is only 100.5 percent of the so-called foundation budget.

Here's hoping the fight on this one isn't quite over. Not cutting is good. An increase is better. An increase close to what we asked for would be even better than that.

Questions from City Council: enrollment

Councilor Petty: How many students have we lost and how is that related to the budget deficit?

We've lost 3000 students over the past six years. We've got just over 23,000 students.
About $10 million dollars of our cuts is enrollment based (we get less money from the state and fed when we have fewer students), replies Brian Allen.

"Start chipping away..have a plan. Is there a plan to get to the 3.6?...to at least get there. How do we get to the $3.6 million to get to the 2%?"

(This assumes, incidentally, that the 2% was some sort of "all we need number." It's not. 102% puts us way down at the bottom of the barrel on funding, should we even get there.)

Petty: "If you can come up with $3 million...get telecom passed...get to 102%. We all recognize that; I think this council does support that idea."

Questions from City Council:

"One simple question" from Councilor Germaine

Ugh...back to the 103% again.

"Are we there? Are you satisfied with the budget?"

"First year we aren't cutting services; I'm happy...none of us are happy that we have the status quo...a lot of very hard work in funding inside the budget..$6.3 million dollars of purchasing power...satisfied and very pleased with that...net school spending is calculated on your bottom line, not on your line item. Purchasing power is what you'd have if you had 103%. It's really about purchasing power...There should be much more weigh in net school spending."

Germaine "We're going to find $13,000 here...going to throw every nickel at this."

There was great frustration in the audience during this exchange. As we heard from one parent, speaking of Superintendent Caradonio, later, "What did he have to lose? He's leaving this year! The right answer was 'NO! I'm not satisfied!' What was up with that??"

From the mailbag...

Not one but TWO letters in the Telegram and Gazette this morning! Unfortunately, the T&G site doesn't have them up online yet...we'll link when they do.

Something is wrong when you realize that city funding for public education has dwindled annually for the Worcester Public Schools for years now, but many of our city leaders don't seem alarmed or even interested in changing that...It's plain to see that as they consider the budget for fiscal 2009, the Worcester City Council needs to take the call of experts, taxpayers, voters and parents alike much more seriously so that the children of our community get the high quality education they deserve.
(Letter to the Editor, Gretchen J. Switzer, 5/27/08)

In 2007, the legislative and executive costs increased by 15.9 percent. In 2008, recreation and culture spending increased by 18.2 percent. On average, funding for public education increased an average of 3.4 percent each year. The largest average yearly increase was received by the health and human services (25.1 percent), followed by general government (10.4 percent)...If we don't increase funding for public education, we will see the cost of human services continue to rise as more of our kids graduate unprepared for the future and become dependent on social services. Is that what we really want?
(Letter to the Editor, Kevin B. Austin, 5/27/08)

Quotable Quotes 9

After a long hiatus on letters, the editorial department over at the T&G must have worked through the backlog:


However, let’s face facts: Across Massachusetts, the average local contribution to public schools by municipalities, above the minimum required, is 14 percent. Yet, the city manager’s plan calls for Worcester to contribute only 0.5 percent above the minimum. Our schools have learned to do more with less, but that strategy has limits. How can we enhance and maintain a good public school system when it has been subjected to $58 million in cuts over the past six years? Other Massachusetts cities, like Fall River, Brockton and Lynn, are contributing well over the minimum to their public schools, and we should follow their lead.(Kristin Keeven, Letter to the Editor, 5/19/08)

Vindication

It seems the Massachusetts Office of Educational Quality and Accountability agree with advocates for increased school funding!
According to the front page story in today's Telegram and Gazette:

“The (state Educational Management Audit) Council is concerned that although the community meets its net school spending requirement, this does not provide enough resources for the school district,” EQA interim Executive Director John J. Aherne wrote...The council “encourages the City of Worcester to address the insufficiency of resources to meet its educational obligations"

You can find the full report from the EQA here.
(that's a double underscore in the address before the "1" if you're trying to type it in from the T&G)

The City Manager owns up

It didn't, of course, make it in the paper, but deep in the City Manager's budget message, he does give the right numbers:

With the overlay appropriation, it is possible to provide for an additional $1.15 million above the minimum required school funding...

(emphasis added)
And then the spin:
This effective increase to the WPS to provide services in the classroom is more than 103% over the state-mandated minimum. While the State formula does not recognize redirected health insurance costs as increased net school spending, we know that dollars are better spent in the classroom than on health care costs. The chart on the next page shows that of the $7.85 million in funds now available for classroom spending at the Worcester Public Schools, only $1.15 million is included in the state calculation of increased Net School Spending

(and you'll remember that the state calculation is so woefully short that several members of the Worcester delegation are working to increase it!)

It's a very pretty chart. It also doesn't change the facts.

Percent over foundation budget

Ms. DelSignore compared our percent over foundation budget spending (0.3%) with other local communities:

Boston 111% (you'll remember that Boston has also committed to a better than 50/50 split)
Sturbridge 138%
Grafton 110%
Framingham 137%
Leicester 107%
Uxbridge 127%
West Boylston 122%
Clinton 108% (Clinton just passed a 2 1/2 override)
Milford 110%
Northbridge 105%

And Worcester?
100.3%

Not even in the ballpark.

Percent of minimunm over time

	state average	Worcester
FY93	0.0%	0.0%
FY94	2.6%	2.7%
FY95	2.8%	5.5%
FY96	5.0%	5.7%
FY97	6.2%	0.9%
FY98	6.8%	1.7%
FY99	6.3%	0.4%
FY00	6.4%	0.0%
FY01	7.8%	0.2%
FY02	8.7%	0.1%
FY03	9.4%	0.7%
FY04	10.9%	0.9%
FY05	11.3%	0.9%
FY06	13.0%	0.5%
FY07	13.4%	0.8%
FY08	14.4%	0.3%

Ed Reform (with its requirements for foundation budget funding) passed in 1993, so that's the baseline year when it comes to city countribution being discussed this way. As you'll see from the above graph (thanks, Colleen!), the city's contribution has varied over time, but it has not made it above 1% in some time, and it hasn't been near the statewide average since the late 90's.

Mandated Minimum

According to the "Report on Revenue and Expenditure Projections for Fiscal Years 2007-2011" put together by the Worcester Public Schools,

the "city contribution is expected to increase by approximately 3%,
an increase mandated as the minimum local contribution"
(emphasis in the original!)

There's that minimum again.

Here's the rest on percent changes.

Should anyone check your numbers

The total amount budgeted by us this year in the specific areas which can be counted toward our total "net school spending" obligation is $255,180,349. Of that 65% comes from the state.

Our total FY08 revenues from all sources (including grants and charter school reimbursement) is $308,235,202.
(You'll note that's a bit higher than the number below. Don't let it confuse you if you hear the higher figure.)

Because of the grants from the federal government and elsewhere adding to this higher total, Worcester's contribution to its own school budget (which is correct below) is 29%.

Not a third.

Not even thirty percent.

Anybody out there think we can maybe ante up more than 29% for our own school budget?