and it isn't even 'everybody wants to be a school committee member' season

 Some of us have often referred to Worcester's election year as "everybody wants to be a school committee member" season, as very frequently in past years, city councilors show a sudden interest in creating policy1 for the Worcester Public Schools in a fashion that is WAY out of their purview.

They seem to have been late with their rounds this year, as observed by Mike Benedetti in his write up of tonight's City Council meeting:

Schools: There are a few items, both from the Public Works Committee and Councilor Ojeda, having to do with school cafeterias, food waste, and students providing meals to poll workers, possibly all of which are outside the purview of the City Council. I note these here because a few years back the Council frequently had items on the agenda that only the School Committee had authority over, but it’s been awhile since that’s happened.

If you check the agenda², these items include: 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS - Request

City Manager request Chief Sustainability Officer work with

the School Department to facilitate a food waste study in the

schools cafeterias. Said study should quantify the

percentage of food waste created compared to the amount

of food distributed from the cafeterias.

14b. Request City Manager provide City Council with an outline

of a two (2) year plan to appropriate funding to work with

the Worcester Public Schools (WPS), supermarkets, and

local organizations to utilize food waste to help combat food

insecurity. (Ojeda)

14c. Request City Clerk work with the Superintendent of Public

Schools to determine the feasibility of Worcester Public

Schools students providing poll workers with meals during

each Election Day. (Ojeda)

While the inquiry--and let's be clear that it is no more than that--of the last item is under Council purview, as elections are (to a certain extent), now that the schools are closed for students on election days in Worcester, this seems a rather expensive (to put it mildly) undertaking. As most polling places are not in schools, I don't know why this would be the schools' problem to solve. 

But food waste studies of the Worcester Public Schools cafeterias and a two year plan on food waste in school cafeterias? Those are both totally not under the Council purview (nor on their committee on Public Works).

Further, the school nutrition program of the Worcester Public Schools is entirely funded through federal USDA funding. There isn't even any budgetary interest possible here. 

I'd suggest the City Council interest itself in things that are actually under its purview, and leave the oversight of the public schools' nutrition programs to the district. 

________________________________
¹Somehow this never seems to extend to the very much under their purview matter of funding the schools below the legal requirement. That would require their requiring something of their actual employee, the city manager, as opposed to making speeches about children on matters over which they have no control. Yet here we are.

²And cheers to whomever started posting it as a PDF that actually just OPENS on the city site, so we don't have to DOWNLOAD it to open it!

Feedback on the city's strategic plan

You can review the draft here. 
The feedback form is here.

Here's what I just wrote: 

Overall, it does not look to me as if the "partners" are actual outside partners, but are actually division assignments. And when there are "partners," being specific as to whom (rather than "non-profits," for example) would give rather more credence to the plan. 

In the health section, and throughout, any work with youth, the Worcester Public Schools must be listed as, but more than that, BE a partner. They aren't listed in several areas (youth violence, mental health), but instead are off in their own section, which isn't the best framing of this work. 

Transportation network doesn't partner with, nor mention, the WRTA or MBTA, and both are needed and should be part of priorities here. 

Focusing ONLY on funding facilities for WPS is to completely miss the ongoing responsibility of the city, which is funding operations; the city has not met net school spending for four years running. When will the city own up to having to fund *over* minimum in order both to fulfil that obligation, not to mention those to the actual children of Worcester?

It is also remarkable that rewriting the municipal agreement between city and schools is here, when it has not been mentioned by school leadership as a need. That makes me concerned that the city sees this not as a mutual process, but as a means by which more credit can be claimed for funding without meeting actual district needs. 

Overall, this priority does not have strategies that "invest in quality education."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: When this was asked during the budget deliberation:

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

Yes, the proposed Worcester Public Schools FY25 budget is posted

 And you can find it online here.

and there is our rueful fish in his budget habitat

I am not going to give you any analysis in this post--I haven't cracked this open yet!--but let me give you a few tips in reviewing:

• Revenue matters. As much as we all immediately want to plunge into what the recommended allocations are and aren't, the money has to come from somewhere. The majority of the Worcester Public Schools' funding comes from the state--which is what's led to this push around inflation, which is the main reason for the FY25 budget gap--

  

  from page 18; as a side note: the federal grant triangle here is back down,
  because the ESSER funding that boosted it is gone
  total federal grants was $70,633,666 (FY22), $83,720,834 (FY23), $65,411,638 (FY24)

  
  
  ...but there is a state mandated balance between that and city funding for the general fund budget. The first place I always flip (and the one thing I did check right away yesterday) was if the city's budgeted spending is projected to meet the state requirement. This year that's on page 377:
  
  
  
  ...and the answer is no: we're $1.1M short.
  Now, if you follow the math, what's happening is that we're still catching up from the $3M from FY23; plus this current year, it was back to a little over $1M until the School Committee had to cut $800K from the budget due to the charter school tuition/reimbursement coming through other than what was expected.
  
  
  
  Nonetheless, not meeting the state mandate again. 
  And as a reminder: 
  
  
  

  

  from page 10

  
  
• I know you're going to look at the school by school, but remember that isn't how the budget gets passed. Particularly in a year where there are cuts, anyone with a connection to a particular school is going to flip to those pages first (they start on page 234). I get it.
  The budget is not passed school by school, however, and school committees in Massachusetts don't have that level of authority over the budget (or assignment authority at all).
  The budget is passed at the cost center level, which is the account by account section of the budget that starts on page 155, as listed in the table of contents.
  I anticipate, by the way, that this may be a struggle for the Worcester School Committee this year, with the new makeup of the committee. Committee members cannot move money in such a way that it will only benefit their own district.
  If you're going to advocate, keep this in mind with your advocacy. 
  
  
• Most of those numbers are big. This sounds silly to say, but small changes are not what makes big differences in a budget of this size. As I've said before, and no doubt will again, don't get caught bikeshedding the budget. 
  
  
• The budget isn't done until the bottom line is voted. This is a proposed budget; each account gets reviewed and passed by the Worcester School Committee over June 6 and 20 (starting at 4), and the bottom line is approved on on the 20th.
  
  
• They have to hear from the public first. It was only recently posted, but the public hearing date is Monday, May 20 at City Hall at 6 pm.

Go review it! Be grateful we get the comprehensive budget document we do!

And let me know if you have questions I might be able to answer. 

Two quick notes on the framing of the city budget

The Worcester City Council sees the proposed city FY25 budget for the first time Tuesday. I don't have time now to go through everything they have going on with that, but I did want to make two quick notes, as it appears this year's passive aggressive language is surrounding the increase in required city spending.

Let's first just note that the city hasn't met the required spending for the past two years, and is projected not to meet its required spending for the current year, either: 

just realized I didn't source this; it's DESE Chapter 70 district profile, 2/21/24

And as (sigh) this inevitably, and yes, right in the budget, involves another round of "but this doesn't count capital or debt service," that is correct and also STANDARD, which means that, for example, all of those shiny new schools you see MSBA celebrating are in communities that are ALSO carrying debt services which ALSO doesn't count for them, and yet they not only are meeting net school spending, THEY ARE SPENDING WELL OVER IT.

Moving on: the increase required of the city is determined by the municipal revenue growth factor, which is also how it is calculated across the state for every community. Yes, this year's 5.01 is the highest it has been in some time: 

As noted on the slide, MRGF is calculated by the state by the actual changes in a community's:

• State-imposed levy limit of 2.5%
• New growth
• State aid 
• Prior year local receipts

Decisions the city may make regarding those inputs--not tapping the levy, pushing new growth into areas that don't include schools, and so forth--make no difference to the state, as the city's available revenue has still grown by that much.

And finally, to the carrying of costs: as has been ongoingly noted, the majority of Worcester's budget is carried by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By the percentage of the foundation budget the local community is required to contribute, Worcester is 349 out of 360 (or 12 if you want to count up from the bottom); Worcester's in red:

Possibly especially because I am going to be in the State House tomorrow alongside those who will be arguing that the state should fund the inflation rate in such a way to make up prior years under the cap which would benefit Worcester: it is difficult to have that taken seriously when the city doesn't meet its required spending, and then complains about that required spending growing when it is and remains among the lowest percentages in the state. 

Two on Worcester Public Schools budget (this one on FY24)

It's been a bit since I've written anything on Worcester's budget at all, let alone this current year, and there are a few things worth understanding. 

Let's first note that the Finance, Operations, and Governance subcommittee meets on Monday at 4:45 PM. The agenda for that is here, and it does include proposed policies on cell phones and earbuds, on service animals in schools, and on emotional support dogs, as well as the current student handbook ahead of its annual changes. I'm not going to post on that here, but if any of that is of interest, go take a look.

The subcommittee also has the FY24 third quarter report, though, running through March 31.

On city finances and planning

 At the April 9 meeting of the City Council: 

Toomey makes request under suspension for a five point plan on school building finances needs and renovations.

— Marco Cartolano (@marco_cartolano) April 10, 2024

While it appears to be deleted, Councilor Toomey later clarified on Twitter that she was speaking of amending the city's five point financial plan. 

A couple of notes on the WPS budget

It's been awhile since I posted anything on the WPS budget--we've been sailing along through quarter two here--but there are a few things that I haven't yet had a chance to note, so I thought I'd pull them together here.

"The School Committee has budgetary authority at the cost center level."

Of the many things I say about school finance frequently, this is one of the most frequent, in part because what "school committee authority" on budget actually means can be unclear if you haven't been around school budgeting.
If you have...please know that this level of authority has explicitly been the case since the early 90's.

What does this look like? The best illustration is the quarterly budget updates that the Worcester School Committee gets, at which we also exercise our transfer authority. 
Thus, in September, the Finance and Operations subcommittee received the first quarter budget report for FY23, which started in July. The fourth page gives the 30 cost centers the Worcester School Committee voted allocations to back in June and how much we adopted them for; how much of that has been spent; and what the projected balance for the end of the year is, based on what is known at this time. 
Based on that last, which is described in the prior pages (good budget reports don't just have numbers!), the subcommittee, and then the full School Committee, may make transfers as recommended by the administration between those cost centers. Administration can spend within and up to the allocated amount in every one of the thirty centers, and the School Committee does not have the authority to, for example, designate a salary (save for the small number of contracts which we negotiate directly). If a cost center is projected to be more than what is allocated, the money has to be transferred, by School Committee vote, from somewhere else. 
If you wonder over the course of the year where we're at on spending: this is the place to check. 
And if you wonder if folks know what they're talking about school spending, remember: cost center level. 

Back in September, the Worcester Regional Research Bureau published a look at the overall city budget, which I highly recommend to anyone trying to follow or figure out how it is that the city spends its money. It's also--from my corner of the universe--very useful in terms of showing what the cityside can and cannot do for schools, and does and does not do for schools.

Let me show you what I mean. 

This chart is page 7 of the report, and while it's a chart we see every year in the WPS budget (this year, it's page 30), there are some things that it is useful to have someone else call attention to, like exactly how little of the overall WPS budget is local contribution: it's less than a quarter. As a reminder, this is intentional: it's a function of the foundation budget and municipal wealth calculations working precisely the way that they should be.

I'd put this in concert with the note on the full rundown on allocations on page 6:

...something which you wouldn't often know in watching Council deliberate the WPS overall allocation.

Note that this voluntary contribution over required this year was originally projected to be just over $300,000; you can find that on page 432 of this year's WPS budget. Due to the changes in the state budget described in our September budget update, the district has a commitment from soon-to-be-no-longer-Acting City Manager Batista for the $1M that our budget otherwise would have dropped, which will push this contribution up. 
That's much appreciated, because otherwise we would have either had to cut the budget by $1M, or, sigh, use ESSER funds to fill the gap.

Going more deeply into the Worcester Public Schools budget, the Research Bureau not only issued a report, but gave us all a new toy to play with on the WPS budget. They've spent what's clearly a ton of time breaking down both revenue sources and spending in the Worcester Public Schools' budget from FY19 to the present. There not only are numbers: there are charts! And you can change them! You'll be able to see, for example, that the vast majority of our budget is spent on salaries, and most of that on teachers, just like every other district out there. Education is a people-centered system.
Give it a whirl, as it does a nice job of breaking down some of the internals of what exactly we're doing with our now over $500M a year.

And you don't get higher praise from WPS finance than a link straight from the budget page.

Now, all of the above is about the operating budget: that's the "running the system" part of the funding. For the major purchases--things like buildings?--you have to look at the capital budget, which the Research Bureau includes in the first report, on page 8. 
First, check out where the money is coming from: 

MSBA far and away is the most, and that's because, yes, we're building new schools. Much like chapter 70 state aid can't be spent on anything other than education, MSBA funding is coming to us to go straight into new buildings. The rest of the $90M is coming in through various local means.

Keep in mind, of course, that the MSBA is going JUST to those projects: it's building the new Doherty; it was building the new South; it's putting a new roof on Worcester Arts Magnet. It is project funding only, and it does not go to any other buildings.

Check out, though, what we spend our capital budget on:

The $60M at the top is the same $60M we saw coming in for those specific projects: it's a wash. 
Skim down, though, and look at where all of the other capital needs for 48 schools in buildings ranging in age from last year to before the Civil War. 

$4M. For everything. 

Now, I've been reading the city's capital budget for years, but I don't think that I've ever seen in presented in quite so stark of terms before. Something to consider as we head into the planning of another fiscal year. 

Please note that I am always, always happy to field questions on our budget, and if I don't know the answer, I'll find out!

Oh, ok

I haven't posted here about Worcester and May and Hammond last Monday, as I've said plenty elsewhere it's more relevant, but on a general note, let's first say that if you're going to speak or write about it, you should be sure you've reviewed this extensive thread by Sam Bishop:
as well as Bill Shaner's bonus "Worcesteria" this week.
That would have been useful in informing what Nick Kotsopoulos wrote in his column today.

Partway through, though, Nick heads over into what is very much my universe:

The argument being made for defunding the Police Department is that its money could be put to better use, such as for the public schools. On more than a few times, those who addressed the council talked about how the public school budget has been slashed.
Mind you, the recommended School Department budget for next fiscal year is $388.45 million, which is 5.3% or nearly $19 million more than the current year budget. Not what I would exactly call a “slashed” budget.
Not that the Worcester Public Schools can’t use more money; it certainly could. But the fact that the school budget is almost $19 million more than this year doesn’t fit the narrative. At the same time, the recommended $52.7 million Police Department budget is only $254,320 more than this year.

You might remember that I already called this out once this year, when the city presented this framing along with its FY21 budget. I also noted it again when I wrote about the FY21 Worcester Public Schools budget. Let's say this again:

Of the "nearly $19 million more" for FY21 proposed for the Worcester Public Schools, $1.1 million comes from local funds

The vast, vast majority of Worcester Public Schools funding comes from the state. That has been true, that is true, that will continue (we hope!) to be true (as otherwise we're sunk). To continue to perpetuate the misinformation that somehow the city is being generous to the school is, simply wrong.
And one thing that makes me sad about this is that I've talked with Nick in the past and I know he knows how WPS is funded.

Here's how the city is doing over what is the STATE MANDATED REQUIRED MINIMUM:

What this means in plain terms is that the city went up only by the state required minimum, as the increase on transportation was just be eaten by prior years.
(No, transportation isn't covered in required spending, so to stay "even" the city would need to cover both the required spending increase and the contractual transportation increase--which they ddin't do--and that is why some of us would also like to drive some of that funding back to schools.)

The irony in all of this, by the way, is that if the City Council DID go through the process of moving funds from the allocation to police in the schools, it wouldn't increase the Worcester Public Schools' budget at all.

It would just mean we could spend that money on something else. 

Proposed FY21 Worcester Public Schools budget

A budget is a moral document.
What we fund is what we value. pic.twitter.com/4xRtRdOoSR

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) March 18, 2019

This year, of all years, I'd urge you to think of what we are doing in this light.

If you're here looking for information on budgeting for policing in schools, that post is over here.

Probably the most important thing to know about the FY21 Worcester Public Schools budget is that the budget as proposed is unlikely to be the budget we end up with. The budget is based on running a regular year, and it's based on the Governor's House 2 budget proposed back in January, pre-pandemic and before the resulting economic catastrophe. Both of those are things that we're going to have to change.
Everyone is awaiting the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's guidance reopening schools--and awaiting if it is something that we are able and willing to follow, to speak for myself--and awaiting the state budget. The first is supposed to come out in three weeks or so; the second we may not have until August.
So to some extent, this is a bit of a fictional universe. And thus, this is kind of a hard blog post to write, because my heart isn't really in it, as we're...not going to do this.

Nonetheless, we are required to have a budget by June 30, so on June 4 and 18 at 4 pm, the Worcester School Committee will deliberate the budget proposed by administration, and we'll have to pass something.
And then we'll have to come back and do it again over the summer, one assumes.

On the 4th, we start with public comment at 4 pm, so please do weigh in as you have thoughts. 

Worcester School Committee FY21 before the Worcester City Council

The Worcester Public School's bottom line is before the Worcester City Council tonight, which means it is time for two three reminders!

1. The Worcester City Council, under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34:

shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restrictions on such appropriations.

aka: no, the Council doesn't decide how the money gets spent.


2. The Worcester Public Schools are very much majority state funded:
   
   
   
   
   
3. The City of Worcester for FY21 is allocated $866,049 more than the required minimum contribution to the Worcester Public Schools.
   
   
   Given the FY21 Worcester Public Schools' foundation budget, that means the contribution is:
   
   0.17%
   

   over the required minimum contribution. 

posting as we go...

though I came in late because the echo was ridiculous

Colorio asks about added 70 positions

Allen notes "they're generally teacher or IA positions added through the budget

Colorio: can you explain the salary increases?

Allen: contractual salary increases: step increases

Colorio: will you see less students coming to schools

Binienda: guidance has not yet come out on that regarding if the remote learning or a hybrid model

so will still need the teachers; waiting for the guidance from the state, which will determine that

Colorio: don't you have an online learning for those who might be out sick

Binienda: no, they don't have an online learning program

Russell: survey of parents nationwide that a large percentage of them would do homeschooling rather than send students back

thinking about that as part of a Plan B at all? "Is it our job as a city just to be taking the guidance of the state?"

Binienda: homeschooling is very different, district doesn't get involved in this

which is not the question he has asked

The Commissioner has said districts will follow this guidance that is coming out

did recommend once the guidance comes out if they're planning on sending their students to schools or continuing with remote learning

"now that doesn't mean that we're held to that answer"

how many students are going to be present in school

guidance at this point is ten (12, I think) students on a bus; will need two nurses in a building (one for students with coronavirus, one of those without)

Russell: how many more buses do we need then?

"my math tells me that we need five times as many buses; is that right?"
Binienda: we'd be looking to make a plan

if only sixty percent of the kids are coming to school...

we'd be looking to 

Russell: if they stay home, are they homeschooling or are they still doing what they're doing now?

Binienda: they'd be remote learning

we'd have to see what the guidance is; "that would make a difference for us"

"going to spend all summer"

Russell: "do we need classrooms of a different size?"

Binienda: "I can't wait to see the new South High up..."

"we'd spread kids out throughout the building"

"it's not altering at all the structure of the school"

Russell: how have we done on the work on Worcester East Middle?

Allen: have replaced the boiler through MSBA, currently replacing the roof

MSBA said the school needs more work than an accelerated repair project; hopefully will be done as a core project

Russell: peeling paint and tarps?

Allen: providing a report

How it is that the councilors never notice that this would have anything to do with the Worcester Public Schools capital budget...

Mero-Carlson: budget is pre-COVID; how does that translate to that budget? Will this be sufficient?

Binienda: hoping for that extra funding to address some of the COVID-related challenges for us

hybrid or remote, need to be 1 on 1

some money for kids connectivity: hotspots

"we figured probably around $4M...just to be able to provide the online learning"

"we need PPEs" 

schools donated PPEs

said parents are going to be responsible for masks for children; district has to provide masks for adults

temperature taking for every students and adults

"even if 60% of students return to our large high schools"

temperature scans that go in the ceiling to scan large numbers of people

Allen: question is excellent; was prepared pre-COVID

"we don't know what the state revenues will look like, and we certainly don't know what education looks like in September"

but looking at different scenarios: hybrid, and reductions in state funding

Bergman: anticipation that students will have to provide their own

what happens if a child shows up without one: will one be provided "are there discipline consequences for that?"

Binienda: "of course there aren't any discipline consequences"

and she got really foggy here

Bergman: adaptations for snow days?

Binienda: had cancelled our snow days this year; but DESE had cancelled previously experimenting with that

Bergman: is that a requirement?

and her answer here that districts were doing different things, but that isn't why DESE decided on that

Bergman: WEMS: any thought on that?

Allen: after Burncoat

Bergman: did we have enough substitutes?

Binienda: yes I think she said?

Bergman: doesn't it make it a challenge? can't really predict numbers

Binienda: "it's kind of what we're doing now, though...had some savings on busing...those savings were hopeful for us, because we were able to purchase some things that were needed"

Bergman: has anything changed because the buses aren't used?

Allen: negotiated a lower rate; only 77% of the daily rate for continuity of service

agreement that they would pay their drivers to have available

used as well to transport people to the homeless sites

funding redirected back to Chromebooks

Bergman: is that in play again for the fall?

Allen: only through the end of the school year

Rose: as more kids have been home, lack of mandated reporters, dormant mental health issues, lack of access to clinicians, what money are being dedicated to trauma response?

Binienda: concerned about students who are taking a gap year

partnership with UMass Med on trauma partnership

"I feel like we're prepared for that"

have hired a clinical coordinator

Chromebooks to be used at home for connecting

Rose: money dedicated to cultural responsiveness training?

Binienda: have hired a consultant, doing in some of the schools will roll out to all the schools

Rose: lack of resources for PPE?

Binienda: a...buying club (?) a virus club? for supplies that the state is putting together

Rose: will we have cost savings if we don't open buildings; what will be what it is spent on?

Binienda: very few technology coaches

training for students and agencies 

mental health and support in that area

Rose: collaborative members getting same services

Binienda: have access to our remote learning "because it's on our website"

one district of the collaborative

Rivera: at subcommittee was brought up using the WRTA for more of our students

which means now it is time to link to this post

Binienda: provide bus tickets for after school 

Allen: much larger and longer conversation on that

"we have about 200,000 riders annually in the examples the superintendent just had"

Rivera: "I just feel like it's a good conversation to have"

Not having teachers equipped to this new technology: is this budget reflective of the adjustment we have to make?

McGovern says "normal wasn't that great" but how do we move forward

teachers and students and families

Binienda: have been preparing "for really great technology"

Google trainer "that is very well trained" and coaches "that are very well trained"

"some of these principals have really learned to use this technology"

"if I had to ask for anything more...we would ask to add four more technology coaches"

Rivera: "diversity is pretty much the same"

"when you look at the administration; you have an all white school committee...and the staffing chart is pretty much identical to last year"

criticism that there is a large population of that is not reflective of our community

...which she is comparing to last year...

Petty: why don't go over the programs you're running with Worcester State and such?

Binienda: "the only reason it's the same is we didn't add any positions; the same people are there"

600 instructional assistants in the Worcester Public Schools, many have been there a very long time

have instructional assistants working to get their degree

"even though the state decided not to go forward with the grant because they wanted to hire a consultant to look at that"

is this actually the case?

paying for a mentor for every four or five of our instructional assistants

Rivera: need people at the decision making level

Rosen: want to ask the superintendent about online and virtual learning

"I don't understand the quality of the online learning...were our teachers trained in this prior to the pandemic"

Binienda: "it was a challenge"

app for parents to use 

spent two weeks calling every family 

1400 families did not have any device but a cell phone

"we expected there would be more" there are many who report that there are

3500 families that do not have connectivity

"they took this on"

Rosen: "I'm guessing that some students if not many students can't learn" this way

"I doubt there are many students that learn more effectively online than they do in the classroom"

Binienda: nothing can compare to the classroom

sychronous and asychronous learning 

Rosen: "feel free to be concise in the answers"

Binienda: you can go on our website and see...she means the plans; he means the classes themselves

Rosen: if the administration of the schools could work with the WRTA, "I think they'd find it pretty good services if we could use the RTA"

trauma of COVID, certainly affects a family

have the parents been trained in teaching?

Binienda: homeschooling "is not a program we provide support for"

Rosen: so much in favor of having classes in the building

"have we considered double session?"

"four hours in the classroom is better than eight hours online"

Binienda "the Commissioner mentioned that was not a model he would be going for...not one he spoke highly of"

King: "very clear the issues related to social emotional learning is gaining so much traction"

Binienda: numbers of those who live in the city

King: sufficient to say that you do hire a number of city residents

WRTA idea:"do have concerns...child safety concerns...a number of young folks who get taking advantage of"

concerns about jobs: might be loss of jobs as it related to our residents

would make a motion that if we consider ramping things up that we make sure child safety concerns are addressed

ask about social emotional learning:

linking students to community resources, particularly during crisis

how are we measuring that efficacy? 

Binienda: adding a school wraparound

having meetings in schools about student social emotional learning

home visits are very difficult to do 

have to rely on teachers who see the kids; talking to parents and getting the support we need

King: our students in the collaborative: what oversight do you have

Binienda: chair of the collaborative board

King: do our Worcester kids have full access to our Chromebooks through the Worcester Public Schools budget?

Binienda: if it was on the IEP

we pay tuition, but then the collaborative staff decides what is recieved

King: diversifying staff: not really following why the Chief Diversity Officer didn't happen

planning and staff on chief diversity officer

Binienda: is currently the prinicipal of Chandler Magnet

"has very unique programs...would not have been appropriate to pull her out without a replacement"

then will be moving to central office

King: success of city and schools based on how we spend money

"and this Council does not write blank checks"

someone may want to look at the chart above

King: do you expect any issue with transportation to or from athletic events?

Binienda: waiting to see if there are any issues with athletics

but don't anticipate any issues with athletics

Allen: agree with the superintendent

Toomey: elaborate on school safety officer's involvement

Binienda: Title IX investigation

visits schools to see if there any issues: "if the doors won't close"

"some of the appeal hearings...the ones that he can do by law"

"really thank him for the work he's doing now...helping with the placement of the homeless at the shelters"

Toomey moves approval

and the line is unanimously approved.

The line for policing in the Worcester Public Schools budget

I usually include this in my larger review of the budget, but I was asked about it this weekend, so I thought I'd give it a post on its own.
It's not surprisingly that this has come up, of course, particularly as measures have been filed by members of (at least) the Minneapolis and Denver school boards to remove the budget lines for police in their schools and cancel their memoranda with their departments; if you know of others, I'd be interested.

The first thing to know is that the funding for the Worcester police in the schools is actually in two places: it's first in the line item budget of the Worcester Public Schools, which is voted by the Worcester School Committee. This year, you can find that on page 193; it's part of the Supplemental Program Salaries cost center:

The most important point here is that this account has been level funded since 1993 (FY94) at $120,000.
Since that's a line in our budget, and the School Committee (unlike the City Council) can move money, yes, that money could be transferred.

That isn't, though, most of the funding for the Worcester police who are in the Worcester Public Schools. That's on page 417, where the calculation of how much the City spends on schools is; the entire page looks like this:

If you haven't been through one of these before, what's happening here is this: the City is legally obligated to spend a certain amount on schools each year (it can, of course, spend more; nearly every district does, and most spend MUCH more), and this is figuring out if the City has hit it. It has the past three fiscal years, the current year as budgeted, and the upcoming year (that's FY21).

As a side note, if you look at the bottom line, you'll see we've been dropping since FY18 in how much over the City has been spending on schools.

The City can spend money on the schools two ways: it can hand over actual money, which are the funds that are then allocated by the School Committee (which the city doesn't have any say over), OR they can spend money on the schools directly on things the City does. Worcester, for example, has a municipal water department; the water department doesn't send a bill to the school department, but instead tracks how much the water costs, and that "counts" as school spending. You can see that under line 9 above.

That's where police are, too; they're just above water: 

So for those who have asked how much Worcester spends on police in the schools, the answer for this current year was to be $120,000 + $844,421=$964,421 (I don't know if this was changed by the pandemic; it's on my list to ask) and for next year it's $120,000 + $861,309 = $981,309.

Again as a side note: If you go back across, you might note that this dropped from FY17 to FY18, dropped again for FY19, and then has been climbing again since. I don't know why; I plan to ask that, too.

Now, THIS second set of money, the Worcester School Committee does not vote. It is allocated as part of the City Council's budget process as part of their lines for each of these items (and it isn't separated out). The Council, unlike the School Committee, does NOT have reallocation authority; they cannot move money. If they wish to do something different than what is recommended to them, they have to request the City Manager make a different budget recommendation to them, he has to acquiesce and do so, and then they have to approve that allocation instead. 

If the Worcester School Committee, alone, were to move the $120,000 from our budget to a different line WITHOUT any other action, there is nothing to stop the City from simply spending (overall) the same amount on police in the schools, counting it as school spending, and cutting our actual monetary allocation by a parallel amount.

I'm not saying they would; I am observing they could.

If one wished, as I have seen suggested, to spend the above nearly a million dollars on something ELSE within the schools, the following would need to happen:

1. The City and the schools would need to agree to end the MOU between the Worcester Police Department and the Worcester Public Schools and no longer have police in the schools. Given what it took to create the MOU, I would think this would take both elected bodies, plus the City Manager, and the Superintendent, plus the Chief.
2. The Worcester City Council would have to request that the City Manager change his proposed budget to move $861,309 from the police department line to the Worcester schools' allocation. (Note that this would not change overall spending on schools, by the way. It would just change where it is spent.)
3. The City Manager would have to agree and come back with a different budget proposal, which
4. ...the City Council would have to vote to approve.
5. The Worcester School Committee would need to vote to move the $120,000 out of line N of Supplemental Program Salaries and move it...somewhere else, like Educational Support Salaries (where the wraparound coordinators and clinicians are) or Teachers (where the adjustment councilors and psychologists are) PLUS allocate the additional funds from the City similarly.

Now, is all of that impossible? No. 

If this is something you care about, two places to start:

• the Worcester City Council hears the Worcester Public School allocation (remember: it's a lump sum; they have no say over what is done with it, and nearly all of the funding they're spending they legally have to; the city is literally 0.17% over the mandated minimum) on Tuesday, June 2 at 4 pm.
• the Worcester School Committee begins its budget hearing on Thursday, June 4 at 4 pm, and we're starting with a public hearing.

Both meetings are public, but remote. 

And if you have questions on any of the above, please let me know. 

OH! And if you're not in Worcester, you should know: it's very common to have the school resource officers be a municipal contribution, not a School Committee allocation, so subbing in whatever your town or city allocation process, your answer may well be similar to the above. 

We're doing this again?!?

Cue this (which even has dancing)
I did this on Twitter this morning

Front page, top of the fold, five takeways from the Worcester City Manager's (proposed) FY21 budget includes this:

3. More than half of the city manager’s $721.8 million budget recommendation is going toward education. According to Augustus, $421.3 million has been allocated for education, representing 58.4% of the total city budget. He said that reflects the priority the City Council and his administration have put on education and the future of the city.

...I cannot believe we are back to this again...
The Worcester Public Schools proposed FY21 budget isn't out until tomorrow, but let's do some back-of-the-envelope math:

As best as I know, the city has no plans to fund the Worcester Public Schools anything (or much of anything) above foundation. We should note here in passing that this is extremely unusual--just about every district in the state funds above foundation, most well above foundation, and yes, most Gateways are several percentage points over--'though this is not my point.
Thus we can pull the state numbers for this: In Governor Baker's proposed FY21 budget, the Worcester Public School's budget is:

$398,714,407 

Of that, the city of Worcester is required to fund no less than:

$105,210,987

Leaving the state to fund: 

$293,503,420

Yes, that means that from a foundation budget perspective, the city funds a bit more than a quarter of the foundation budget.

That isn't all the budget for the schools, though, as transportation (and a few other small ticket items) aren't counted in the foundation budget. 

Last year, the transportation budget for the Worcester Public Schools was about $20.6M. We know that is going up by $1.5M. As an aside, that's a 7% increase, which is about the largest increase the budget is facing, which is due to the new contract with Durham.
That's an additional $22.1M, then, bringing the overall budget to about:

$419M

Of that, the Worcester contribution is about:

$127M

or

30%

And note that the increase over last year is about $23.1M total, of which $18M is state aid, thus 78% of the increase in the proposed budget comes from the state.

Can we knock this off already?

On combining facilities management in Worcester

Did you know we had a report on this? Me, either!
It's here, in the backup to the Worcester School Committee agenda this past week.

The Worcester Public Schools run 64% of the public buildings in the city but they represent 80% of deferred maintenance.
The schools have 55 buildings, of which 40 still need work on roofs. In fact, check out this chart from page 12 of the report:

This would seem to be relevant information in considering future capital budgets.

One of my questions during the meeting about this report was about alignment of departments, something that I thought WPS had well underway. Part of the response mentioned in passing the reorganization the administration undertook the first week of January, putting Capital Projects and Environmental Management together with Facilities under Jim Bedard as the Director; Paul Comerford is Maintenance Supervisor and Building Automation Systems, and Tom Barrett remains Coordinator of Buildings and Grounds. And thus, yes, that wasn't particularly, it seems, a critique of the school department. 
The city, it seems, is running multiple facilities departments, and so they're working to consolidate that before anything beyond possibly sharing the work of tradesmen with the schools.

The piece that I asked the Mayor to pursue cityside--and this is cityside--is consolidate capital planning. We don't have a single process for this, and we should.

The Mayor then raised the reimbursement rate MSBA is giving to the city now; that's out for study under the Student Opportunity Act!

Under the item on Columbus Park, the calling out of DPH of the rest of the HVAC systems' need for a replacement cycle led to the recommitment of the facilities master plan to subcommittee, along with a request for a process for an update on the plan (to include the schools built after the 1990's, not included in the report, because they aren't--or weren't at the time--eligible for MSBA renovation or rebuilding).

Possibly also relevant: the Committee passed the Statements of Interest for MSBA Accelerated repairs for a boiler at Vernon Hill and the roof of Worcester Arts Magnet. In light of all of the foregoing, I suggested--and I'm still honestly figuring out where else we should go with this, so let me know if you have thoughts--that with the increased funding for MSBA, we might suggest a third type of program: something that isn't the strictly boilers/windows/roofs of Accelerated repairs, but provides for projects that also don't rise to the level of full renovation and replacement. It's a thought.

Worcester Public Schools before City Council for FY20: laterblog

When the Worcester Public Schools goes before the Worcester City Council on the budget--or when any school district goes before their appropriating authority--I always find it is useful to start with MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34:

In acting on appropriations for educational costs, the city or town appropriating body shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restrictions on such appropriations.

Further, in Worcester, we do well to note that by section 5-2 of the City of Worcester Charter:

The city council may, by majority vote, make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget, but except on recommendation of the city manager, shall not increase any amount in or the total of the annual budget, nor add thereto any amount for a purpose not included therein, except as provided in section thirty-three of chapter forty-four of the General Laws.

Thus the City Council:

• cannot add more money to the city budget (including the schools)
• cannot transfer money to or from any section of the budget (including schools)
• cannot allocate funds within the school budget

As I already noted, the City is also running very close to the line in terms of required spending, thus they don't have a great deal of ability to even cut.

Nonetheless, the City Council spent more than three hours questioning Superintendent Binienda and Mr. Allen on the FY20 budget on Tuesday night (you can find the videos on Facebook here and here), only to hold the item for next week. It is, of course, an election year, but I've also noticed that municipal bodies tend to edge more and more into schools when they can, either because they aren't getting pushback or they aren't seeing the school committee as doing its own oversight.
Note also that this was covered only by Bill Shaner of Worcester Magazine, which is really a problem. This is not a blow-by-blow liveblog, but I felt we needed to say more about this.

I have literally been writing this post for eleven years

I'm not kidding: the first blog post on here, for March 1, 2008, compared the required district spending to the actual district spending and noted that this put us close to the bottom in how much districts were choosing to spend over required.
Here we are eleven years later, and what do we have in today's paper but a headline reading "Augustus pitches $685.7M Worcester budget including $19.8M hike for schools" and the following:

While much of that increase is fueled by a $17.6 million increase in state aid for education, the city has also increased its contribution for education by $3.6 million, Mr. Augustus said.
In formally unveiling his budget recommendation Tuesday night, the manager told the City Council that an $11 million increase to the school budget was needed to provide level services. But what the manager has recommended goes $8.8 million beyond that.

The $19.8M increase in school funding IS EXACTLY WHAT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED. The City Manager CANNOT do anything with the $17.6M increase in Chapter 70 aid, save precisely what he is doing: passing it along to the schools. Along with that comes a required increase in local aid which is $3.6M, PRECISELY WHAT HE IS RECOMMENDING.

No, one does not get credit for going beyond a level services budget, because a level services budget is not what the system is predicated on.

Nor does one get praise for doing LITERALLY THE MINIMUM LEGALLY REQUIRED in increasing city funding.

I was asked earlier today for charts; let me give you one that demonstrate how Worcester is doing remarkably little for the schools. At a time when the whole of Massachusetts educational policy is in agreement that the “adequate” amount of the foundation budget simply isn’t, many other cities are straining to do more.

Worcester (down on the right), for over a decade, does not. 

More officers in Worcester schools?

I haven't said anything about Superintendent Binienda's endorsement of a police officer at Claremont Academy in part because Councilor Rivera nailed it on why this is a terrible idea.
Only because I see this being reported incorrectly: note that WPS discipline trended back upwards again last year. 
There is absolutely no question what impact having police in schools has on schools like Worcester's.

Although school policing and other security measures harm many students without increasing safety, they do provide one powerful benefit: making the loudest voices feel safer, according to Mallett. "In suburban, white schools that have had positive relationships with police, parents and teachers feel safer," Mallett says, "and it doesn't affect crime or school shootings in a positive way, but it doesn't make it worse."
However, that feeling of safety doesn't translate to students, even white ones. Schindler notes that research shows that a heavy police presence in schools actually has the effect of making kids feel less safe. "The most important thing is to identify where they feel comfortable behaving with adults, where they can share concerns, and where they can be identified if they need help," he says.

Do note how police officers in Worcester schools largely are funded (I covered this as part of my look at WPS FY19 last year; scroll down): most of the funding is city money spent through the city budget, credited as school funding. That has been over a million dollars a year for several years now. Those funds are never seen by the Worcester School Committee; they just show up on the schools' End of Year report "counted" as school spending. The School Committee could, of course, tell the superintendent this is a bad idea; they could renegotiate the MOU with the city that covers police in schools; what they can't do is spend that money somewhere else.
The city, on the other hand, could take those funds and instead add them to their allocation for the Worcester Public Schools, where they could be used on things actually of use to students in the school system. That might, however, require the city to notice that they'd be funding the schools at a slightly higher margin above the required minimum than they currently are, something, as Scott O'Connell noted during last week's meeting, only four Worcester School Committee members were willing to request.
And Clive McFarlane nails it.

Worcester Public Schools FY19 budget hearing

Posting as we go once it starts...
Foley: hearing at a time that the budget has been issued
information that's really important about the public schools
"strategic direction" of district
hearing, then one item regarding legal services
ensure there is also information about the foundation budget
"many, many years now have been dealing with the same issue"
"what is going to happen at the state level to find solutions and fill gaps that are crippling our public school districts?"
1st and 3rd Thursdays of June at 4 pm will be School Committee review of budget
"whatever you say tonight, we will make sure gets conveyed back to the full committee"

Binienda: budget based on limited dollars
hopeful if the Senate and House pass a better budget, hope to restore teaching positions to elementary
"large portion of our population has switched from elementary to secondary"
"certainly we feel this budget meets the needs of the district...btut we want to do more than that"

Allen: condensed presentation of full committee will include addition of foundation budget
budget change over last year is $6.5M (inflation factor, benefit change, enrollment drop, change in poverty allocation, charter assessment)
Level funded budget is $7.2M
schools requested add $11M additional

And worth noting that here is what the principals said they needed... pic.twitter.com/Sdt5eDlGlJ

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 21, 2018

elementary enrichment "will focus on technology or literacy" scheduled similarly to art and music
insourcing transportation of 11 buses is estimated to be $194,000 less than under the contract with Durham (I think I caught that verbal number correctly)fixed

"we were able to continue all of the services we were providing this year" save elementary tutors
summer school for next year not in budget "that's a temporary reduction" to be revisted next year

(there's FBRC slides here that I'll add)

#FBRC gap slide: pic.twitter.com/UnFYfnWCfl

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 21, 2018

Here’s what Worcester is missing today: pic.twitter.com/XnMbxMPAMY

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 21, 2018

Note from Allen that Senate includes some ELL implementation in their budget


Foley: reminds me of late 80's, early 90's..."but it reached the point in the late 80's and early 90's where we reached the breaking point"
"we've done what we can around the edges to save some money"
"all we're doing now is shuffling money...I find it really frustrating to be looking at a budget every year that does the same thing"
"from the point of view of what do as a community...push our reps to ask what is being done with the reconcilation of the Senate and House budget"
"it's not going to change things overnight, but it's going to stave off some disaster for us"
"long term play is still to change the foundation formula"
"the idea of legal action is right in front of us...often times it's the only way to get some equity in the community"
"we will keep pushing on our side...I think that is the only way"
notes 2% increase in health insurance
"what really frightens me is the loss of those tutors...I still think we need to look at that...the kind of support they provide at the elementary level...I do worry about that"
615 teachers...teachers really struggling at the elementary school level
need support K through 12...that's what we're pushing for with our dollars

McCullough: agree with Mr. Foley
appreciate what administration is able to do with the small amount
"can't say enough about how we need to look at the long term"
what teachers and services that students needs
"those tutors...it's going to be a great loss at the elementary level"
"it's amazing that we've been able to do what we do do with what we have"
"what a crisis this really is"

Comparetto: lack of adjustment counselors and guidance counselors; any increase?
Binienda: that was in the extra request from principals, but there is no increase
Comparetto: increase of million in policing?
Allen: not an increase, now at a million dollars in policing "second year of that level of funding"

Foley notes progress on funding over minimum required: work of mayor and city manager
"given limited dollars at city level...have really worked to find free cash here and there"
"give people real credit in support for our public schools"

And now the public comment
WPS parent
$1M to police in budget
"that's a million dollars that can be used for our students and teachers"...restorative justice, wellness programs
"things that have a proven record"
"caring mentors given spaces to build resiliance"
"research supports the fact that educating students in resortative justice" has positive impact
no evidence of cameras, security guards in preventing school violence
"why not invest in more youth workers"
vast disparities in student suspension rates
how will young people benefit from this?
police officers are not trained as social workers
"my children's safety and the children of those I've worked with" is deserved
"a million dollars spent is a million dollars spent on our young people"
Binienda: the million dollars does not come from Worcester Public Schools
"do believe in social justice in our schools"
"if the Senate version of the budget gets passed"
Foley: all support the idea of peer mediation, of trauma informed work in our schools
work at Claremont has been tremendous
young people "understand more about themselves"
Comparetto "if the city is providing this money for policing, couldn't we use that money for peer mediation, adjustment counselors?"
Foley: it becomes part of their equation under net school spending
Allen: the city is allowed to count the police officers' salaries towards net school spending
the city would have to give us a million dollars from another source

Ruth Rodriguez: why is it only majority children of color schools that have policing?
majority white schools have counselors
strong parent advisory council
"it really hurts our community when we see the way our children are being treated"
hear they don't have money in the budget for bilingual counselors, they don't have money for parent councils
"is the money that comes from Puerto Rico" going to go to the students; concerned that it goes in the general fund
It looks as though it went into a special revenue fund...
"I don't understand that we in this day and age are still struggling with services for English Language learners"

parent of young students and member of SURJ
question of the amount of money that is going towards policing in the city
"what I remember from looking at the item was maybe a doubling from 2014 to 2019 for the Worcester Police"
"I'm curious of what the impetius of that was"
psychological impact of police in school on youth of color
"we all know that the faculty and administration of the Worcester public schools don't necessarily reflect the diversity of" Worcester
while teachers are working their hearts out, doesn't mean that we wouldn't benefit from implict bias training
Binienda: "I really do like the police officers in the schools...I do believe they're necessary. I do believe they've established relationships with students."
"they make great relationships with all kids"
"the police officers have been very positive; I'll recommend that they still be in our schools"
"I think there's even more a need with what's going on in the world"
"not a budget item for us, but if it were, I'd still recommend the police stay in our schools"
"I think we still have some work to do, but we're going to keep our schools safe."

Nancy Caswell: systemwide music teacher, 2nd vice president of EAW, speaking as an individual
"human relationships are priceless...learning to read is priceless"
"the answer to fourth prep period for the elementary teachers is not, I believe, cutting the literacy tutors"
"I find myself advocating for a position that's not a union position, but it's a needed position"
"the testing is abominable"
"I think it's time that we as citizens...and as public servants stand up and say 'enough is enough, we need to put things back'"