Dragons to slay this the new school year

Statue of St. George slaying a dragon.
Sainte-Georges, Quebec, Canada

As we've entered this school year, I've noticed as I keep an eye on things across the country that we have some reoccurring things that don't serve kids well that we can actually fix. Yes! These are things that are within our power!
Here then are eight dragons to slay this back to school season:

What's in the proposed FY25 Worcester Public Schools budget: just the facts

 Ahead of Monday's public hearing on the proposed FY25 budget for the Worcester Public Schools, here's a brief look at what is in the document. I'm going to attempt to leave aside opining here on the administration's recommendations (not that I don't have plenty) but stick to an overview. As always, all of this is offered in my capacity as someone who lives here and cares, not in any official capacity at all. 

First up, revenue: 

This budget is projected not meet the city's legal obligation to fund schools for the fourth year in a row:

chart from page 113 of the FY25 WPS budget document

Some things to read this weekend

please enjoy this tree in Palmer

 I've shared much of this on either Twitter or Bluesky, but for those not on there, or who find this easier:

• I'm sneaking this in here due to her connection with the Worcester Public Schools: Senate President Karen Spilka recently asked for ideas on which woman deserves a statute in the state senate, and here is a suggestion it should be Frances Perkins (graduate of Classical High). 
  
  
• There's new research out on state takeovers of school districts, and, as EdWeek writes: 
  

  Politicians typically pitch state takeovers as efforts to help steer a sinking ship to calmer waters. But existing and emerging research offers a more mixed and less rosy view.

  And speaking of state takeovers, things are not great in Houston. 
  

• You may have heard a lot about Norwegian cell phone bans in school. Here's a blunt list of what was actually found.
  

• The bill that passed the House this week adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which classifies most anti-Zionism as antisemitic is what has been repeatedly called for in public testimony before the Mass Board of Ed; it happened at the January meeting, from the panel invited by Chair Katherine Craven, and then again in February and March. Lest you think it only happens elsewhere. 

• This opinion piece in the New York Times on college admissions spends too much time from the perspective of a wealthy student, but some of the points are useful. Sara Goldrick-Rab, meanwhile, reminds us of community colleges and decisions that need not be made in the spring.

• Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law this week new penalties for those passing a stopped school bus:
  

  Illegally passing a stopped school bus is now classified as a high and aggravated misdemeanor, resulting in a fine of no less than $1,000,12 months in jail, or both.

• A Marin County grand jury found that asking parents to provide school supplies was contrary the California education code:
  

  “Public schools in California are required to provide, at no cost to students or their families, all the supplies, materials and equipment necessary to fully participate at school,” the grand jury states in an introduction to the report. “As a result, it is improper for public schools to distribute lists of school supplies that are required or requested.”

• This piece on rules came in response to the college response to college protests this week, but I thought it applies well to how schools run, too:
  

  We spend our lives being socialized to believe that failure to follow rules is harmful to society. Less remarked upon is the equally important fact that overzealous, unthinking enforcement of the rules is just as harmful to society. Inflexible as rules are, they cannot function effectively without the ability of their enforcers to compare their text to the fluctuating exigencies of the real world. Small-minded determination to use rules as the final word on all human conduct is characteristic of goons, acting with the desperate meanness that comes from the need to have an easy club with which to beat back the imposing intricacy of life.

  And speaking of those, McSweeney's doesn't miss. 

What did you propose at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting?

 As we opened budget deliberations last night, I shared the following with my colleagues on the Committee: 

June 3, 2021

FY22 WPS budget transfers and additions of Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief funds

Worcester gets an article after all: building a bigger table

...but before we talk about that, let's note this nice piece from Sentate President (and former Ashland School Committee member and yes, I am always going to remind us of that) Karen Spilka:

This week, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the Student Opportunity Act unanimously. This historic vote demonstrates our commonwealth’s continuing commitment to ensure a quality public education for all our children.
It also represents a deeply personal achievement for me and MetroWest, as I first ran for the Legislature 18 years ago to address what I saw as inequities in school funding in my hometown. With my two young children in public school, I first ran for school committee, and then convened the Chapter 70 Roundtable.
A statewide coalition of parents, teachers, administrators, school officials, advocates and stakeholders, we sought to advocate for equity, adequacy and predictability in educational funding. the passage of the Student Opportunity Act, I am proud to say that we are finally seeing the culmination of that advocacy two decades later.

Very true, and we should note that the leadership of Senate President-emerita and former Worcester School Committee member Harriette Chandler, as well, and that list is considerably longer. 

Earlier this week, I was lamenting the losses among the local press and what that meant for coverage of this school funding bill's impact locally; I am more than pleased to have been proven wrong this morning:

Front page of the Sunday Telegram has a headline that reads "Filling the blanks" over an image of a teacher leaning over a little girl with headphones looking a laptop screen

And the article is online here. 

I would say there are three things happening in this article:

1. Is this really over?

This is the crux of the question over if the potential lawsuit involving Worcester will be dropped, for starters. We should note that Worcester, involved in the potential Mass Association of School Superintendents lawsuit, has not been among those represented in a currently filed lawsuit. The lawsuit that aleady exists through the Council for Fair School Finance (of which, yes, MASC is a member), is Mussotte v. Peyser, was filed in June, and involves children from Chelsea, Chicopee, Fall River, Haverhill, Lowell, Orange, and Springfield. That lawsuit has not been dropped, and I don't know anything of that decision, but the note coming from Worcester's administration that this becomes about implementation is, I think, the key.
I think we also need to remember that "they're trying" was more or less the state's (successful) defense in the Hancock case, so the hopes of a lawsuit being successful under those terms is much less certain.
Which brings us to Brian Allen's answer to "how much?":

As Worcester’s chief financial and operations officer Brian Allen pointed out, while the SOA establishes the goal-funding rates, left unsettled is at what number those rates will be phased in each year.
“It appears to fully cover the gap in the foundation budget we’ve been talking about,” he said, referring to district estimates that Worcester has been underfunded by around $100 million under the current formula. But a host of variables, including the performance of the economy, means that money isn’t technically guaranteed as of the passage of the bill, he added. “Our individual yearly budget will still be subject to what the rates are phased in at (in any given year) ... there’s still going to be a level of uncertainty.”

 This isn't a money bill.

My slide from my 70 on 70 presentation; this is what this becomes about.

There is no actual funding being passed by this bill. It lays out a plan SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION of what will be done, and, as Mr. Allen notes, there isn't an actual schedule in the bill, either. There are also, as I noted back when the Governor leaked DESE spreadsheets, a lot of pieces that are still WAY up in the air: how are we changing the low income count? are we changing the municipal finance side? what are the inflation rateS (there are two now, remember)? and yes, does the economy slide or worse?
That is in ADDITION to the pieces that change year to year, anyway, with the biggest being enrollment, district by district (WHICH DESE DID NOT HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER), and what the municipal economies look like.
We don't know a lot of that. And even the part that we DO know for next year (as we'll be using the FY16 low income counts, for example) is something we know for one year.
AND we still don't know what state implementation will look like.
Thus Superintendent Jokela is right in not getting ahead of things. We need to plan, but we also need to wait.
I've now said this to school business officials, and to school committee members, and to superintendents: the most accurate numbers right now are going to be LOCALLY GENERATED.
And they're still only going to be for one year.
This is one of two areas our advocacy needs to shift to: we need year by year commitment by the Legislature and the Governor to implementation.

2. But are we going to get anything at all?
Let me note up front that this is not a Worcester question; the answer for Worcester is yes, but HEY WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION YESTERDAY.

For many other districts, it's the question of if the state is going to be contributing more than the minimum per pupil increase, along with the fear that their local contributions are going to be increasing a great deal. On the first, there's a reason the Education Committee included charter reimbursement and the (massive) addition of out-of-district transportation to the circuit breaker (which is getting frozen at the FY20 level, plus inflation). ASK HOW MUCH THAT IS FOR YOUR DISTRICT.
On the second, let me direct you back here . This is one that you CAN with a little work mostly figure out; you just have to know how much your actual municipal contribution was for last year, versus how much was required. Rolling forward, what's the division on foundation of the target? Most of you are going to find that your local municipality(ies) are already well over minimum required.
...which brings me to what IS my main concern here: If you are a district that lives in the 5%/7% or so over, and it's a struggle every year to get there, my concern is those that would prefer to spend no more on schools are going to say "we've given you what is required; you should be fine," when perhaps you are not.
If this is your reality, the time to start having those discussions is now.

3. What do we do now? 

Even given Mr. Allen (et al)'s conservative (small c) caution on implementation, we're going to see the largest increase in school funding in Massachusetts since the 1993 Education Reform Act. What are we going to do with it?
If you read this blog with regularity, you can perhaps tell that Scott caught me mid-blog post in my comments in the article. Thinking back to Ben Forman's work on how representative school committees in cities in Massachusetts are (not), we have a responsibility to be very blunt in our assessment of who is at the table and who is not, and work strenuously to counter that.
Long term, this means electoral work; for this coming budget, it means we make this as big a table in as many contexts as possible. Jack Foley, to his credit, has been absolutely unrelenting in making this point over the past several months in Worcester; if you're reading this from elsewhere, is anyone making that point in your district? If not, make it you.
That is our other round of organizing work: when the Governor's budget drops in January and we start that countdown to July 1, we need to be gathering around tables across districts to get everyone's voices heard. That isn't always going to be about the district doing it--though I would argue that the school committees have an absolute responsibility to make this their job--but about any group of any kind that cares about kids and the future to get people together to have these discussions.
And for those who are in Worcester, please consider this my open invitation; I want to hear about these! 
As we have those discussions, I also think we have--and here I mean as people we have--a responsibility not to get distracted by the bright and shiny. We have bedrock needs that are not being met in our districts:

Many underfunded districts have become accustomed to going without the kinds of essential, often ordinary things, like up-to-date novels or working drinking fountains, that wealthier schools “basically take for granted,” Novick said.
“There’s almost an attitude shift that has to happen, to acknowledge the level of need, that this is how big the gap is,” she said.

I mean it when I say that I think that we don't even know what we don't have. We have gaps that are chasms in basic things like teaching and student supports, in building maintenance, in supplies. That's not about new programs, before meeting current needs; it's not about new buildings, before fixing the ones we have; it's not about shiny new curriculum or technology, before getting updates to what is crucial.

The work isn't over; the advocacy and organizing isn't over. Let's start NOW to shift gears towards implementation at the state and local levels.
And let's build a bigger table as we do so.

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.

Justice delayed is justice denied

MassBudget released their long-awaited update to "Cutting Class," the report that gave numbers to our original sense that the foundation budget wasn't adequately supporting public education in Massachusetts. The report is entitled "Building an Education System That Works for Everyone: Funding Reforms to Help All Our Children Thrive" (and if I have a complaint about it, it's that the title is way too long; I've already mentally dubbed it "Cutting Class 2: Here's Hoping We Don't Need a 3.")

Some days, it's hard not to be disheartened by working on this. Yesterday, when I clicked open the report and saw the updated cost gap graph--the original of which I've seen, used, talked about often enough that I have it clear in my mind--was one of those times:

Here's the 2011 version:

In seven years, we've increased the gaps by half a billion dollars.

I think you can boil the message of the report down to this quote from the first page:

While there has been a growing consensus about the shortcomings of the existing school funding system, progress on fixing it has been elusive. While our economy is now years into a recovery, with economic conditions as good as they have been in decades, we have not seen significant new investments in our schools that would help them provide all children in the Commonwealth with real opportunity to succeed.

 Here's what the gap in meeting adequate spending looks like for the lowest wealth districts:

Statewide, thus, the lowest wealth districts, which have some of the neediest kids and some of the highest concentrations of them, have only a bit over two thirds of the teachers that they're supposed to have in the classroom. MassBudget reports that of the 322 districts in the state, "146 spend less on regular education teachers than the formula calls for and 254 districts spend less on materials and technology."

And we're supposed to be shifting to greater uses of technology.

At the same time, we know districts that can have been making up the difference with local funds: 

In 2016-2017, districts spent $2.46B (23.3 percent) more than their requirement across the state, with the median district spending 29 percent more. This pattern provides clear evidence that district decision-makers find the current funding amounts in the foundation budget inadequate to meet the needs of their schools.

In other words, local municipalities are deciding on their own to raise and spend local revenue on schools, over and above the state's calculation, because the state's calculation isn't enough.

In direct contrast to the House's contention that more research is needed for implementation, MassBudget went ahead and modeled implementation; after all, check the notes: they have done reams of research on what works for low income students. They offer phased in implementation over five years, with a option for "everyone gets some," which, again, is not constitutionally required.
While I have not yet had time to play with the spreadsheet on how this works district by district, I plan to and you should.
And I hope the conference committee is.

Worcester Public Schools FY17 budget hearing (June 2)

The budget is here. The sequence in which they'll be taking accounts is here. 
Updating as we go once they start...

WPS budget is posted!

 And it's the first time the announcement has come this way!

FY17 @worcesterpublic budget now available for review at https://t.co/Q7K4ZDFhUI pic.twitter.com/W2Dj8NL90f

— Brian Allen (@Brian_E_Allen) May 13, 2016

The link in the tweet works; the budget is here. 

Here's the opening paragraph:

The Worcester Public Schools is underfunded in the current foundation budget formula in the areas of health insurance, special education, and the skipped inflation adjustment in 2010. The district enrollment is relatively flat from the previous year causing no foundation budget growth due to enrollment. The foundation budget inflation factor is negative for only the second time in twenty-four years causing no increases in Chapter 70 foundation aid. The Governor’s and House of Representative’s proposed budgets provide additional funding for a change in the definition of low income and economically disadvantaged resulting in the total of the district’s Chapter 70 aid increase of $3.8 million. 

I think that may be the darkest opening paragraph I've read in a budget (and I've read them back into the 90's). We did know that this was coming.

For those who were laying odds, Superintendent-elect Binienda's name is on the budget.While there may as yet be no agreed-upon contract, the superintendent's salary is budgeted for $200,000. That's an increase of $6000 over Dr. Boone's final salary last year, which is interesting, given that the incoming superintendent has no experience and no terminal degree.

The following major points jumped out at me just from skimming (per my open questions):

• the administrative restructuring drops three positions, due to retirements, and adds two positions: a Manager of Curriculum and Learning, to whom the curriculum liaisons will report, and a Manager of Instruction and School Leadership, to which (if I'm reading the org chart correctly) the current Quadrant Managers will be also changed, making two for elementary and one for secondary. Budgetarily, it's a bit of a savings, due to the length of service of those retiring this year
• the secondary cuts came in at nine positions with, the budget says, no change in course offerings. The changes are as follows: no changes at UPCS or Forest Grove. Burncoat: up a history, down a language, up a science thus +1; Claremont: down a special ed thus -1; Doherty: down a science thus -1; North: down a history, a language, a health thus -3; South: down an English, a math, a language thus -3; Tech up a .4 language thus +.4; Burncoat Middle: down a math thus -1; Sullivan down an English, a math, a language thus -3; WEMS down a math thus -1. And that may be missing a half I missed somewhere. I haven't done the elementary; those are supposed to net out to zero change over the district, but there will be school by school changes.
• Elementary class sizes will, as projected, have 72 classrooms of 26 or more students.
• Dual language increases to sixth grade.
• No increase in support staff
• Overall, there is a drop of 4 special education teachers.
• There is a cut of three preschool classes; I didn't check the school by school budgets to see where yet; I'll update once I do.
• Alarmingly, Mr. Allen is projecting charter school reimbursement at 36%. Remember, that's based on the House budget, which cut the charter reimbursement from Governor Baker's budget, while not tying it in the same knots.
• The IB coordinator for the planned Advanced Academy is still there. 
• Per pupil instructional materials is still being funded at $68/pupil with $1/pupil for recess in elementary schools.
• Security guards are still being funded, and there's a 20% increase in that line item.
• There's an increase of over $100,000 in the rental line item, due to the increased rental of space at the Y for Chandler Elementary, since the building plan was nixed.
• While the overall regular transportation budget is only increasing by 1%, due to the capital budget from the city continuing to be level-funded, the district cannot replace district-owned school buses at the rate needed. The district thus is renting three more special education buses than last year. And, as the capital budget is again level-funded this year, expect that to go up again and again. 
• Health insurance is going up by 6%.
• Workers' comp looks like it's probably still underfunded by about $300,000.
• Facilities remains, with exception of trash, level funded, which it's been since the beginning of time...
• In about the only bright spot in the budget, the school nutrition budget is going up for next year by about an overall 15%, due both to increase reimbursement and to increase participation. That would be Community Eligibility working! 

AND the mysterious increase in FY16 funding? Check out the city contribution schedule on page 406 (of the online PDF): you can click to make this bigger; I've got to change the margins on postings...

The big change last year was, indeed, the police being added to the schools. From just over $400,000 in FY15 to $762,914 in FY16 and projected for $778,172 in FY17, the city-assessed cost of police in the schools has nearly doubled over the past two years. That isn't the full cost; there's still $120,000 in the Supplemental Program Salaries, as well.
This year, there's not only the continued jump in police charges, but there's also an increase of almost $100,000 in administrative charges.
As always, those aren't costs the school committee votes on; they're charges the city levies against the school department, over which the school department has no say.
Thus the "over foundation" portion of the WPS budget is coming mostly in city administration and in policing.

The City Council hears the Worcester Public Schools' budget at their May 24 meeting; the Worcester School Committee budget hearings are I believe, as they aren't posted, June 2 and June 16.

Tonight's FBRC rant

Just ran Haverhill...

Just ran #Haverhill. Here's their health insurance foundation budget gap. That's $10 MILLION they're under to start! pic.twitter.com/d1dDbO8Q9K

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

#Haverhill funds as just a smidge over foundation (1.6% in FY14). So where does it come from? Everywhere else! #FBRC
(3/x)

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

Here's #Haverhill's budget gap in teachers: $8.6 MILLION short in FY14! #FBRC That's at least 100 teachers short! pic.twitter.com/tyNs3OQXFN

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

For the urbans, it's EVERYWHERE! Here's #Haverhill maintenance & operations. Almost half what it should be! #FBRC pic.twitter.com/7xvFQp2P5H

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

Here's #Haverhill instructional materials and technology. #FBRC That's less than half! pic.twitter.com/8ab4AOugux

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

(but please, tell me again how technology was magically supposed to be appearing in every district over the past few years) #MAEdu

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

Funding professional development short a million a year makes a difference to #Haverhill teachers, right? #FBRC pic.twitter.com/GIflyBkPCI

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

And #Haverhill is short all the way up, too: both district admin & school admin are badly under as well #FBRC pic.twitter.com/9xwcWlMjZu

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

And this is true EVERYWHERE! Either your district is funding over foundation to cover things, or it's coming out of other accounts. #FBRC

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

(or both) #FBRC

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

The foundation budget isn't adequate. #maleg, you have to fix this. #FBRC
(/end rant. For tonight.) #MAEdu

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) March 5, 2016

Worcester School Committee Finance and Operations meets tomorrow

The Finance and Operations subcommittee meets tomorrow evening at 5:00 with three items on the agenda. You can find the agenda here.
The second quarter budget report for FY16 has good news! The account by account update shows an end of year balance (largely due to teacher vacancies; see the report for details), and that means real things can happen heading into the third quarter. In this case, administration has released the frozen $10 per pupil supply money for schools (hurray!) and the projected balance means that the district can buy new textbooks (!), plus security equipment, AED & CPR equipment, and HVAC and boiler replacement (can somebody ask where?). 
Following on Good Harbor's safety assessment last year, the Safety Advisory Committee is reporting out. The big recommendations are creating a safety/communications administration position, with an expanded definition of safety and security; aligning the security budget (which right now comes out of multiple accounts); moving the police liaisons to resource officers and adding two more to cover elementary schools (and in the process, discontinuing the use of outsourced security); adding after school programming, and adding (long term) additional vocational programs.
Finally, there's a report on the Environmental Health Bureau of DPH discontinuing radon testing at City View School.

A few back to school notes

Overall, a good first day! A few back to school notes from me:

• Did you get one? We have "please update and return" forms for the basic office information this year! That is because parents asked that we work on the number of back to school forms (yes, you ARE heard! And there are still too many.).
• School lunch costs $1.75 this year.
• If your child is in secondary school (particularly middle school) and there is not a nearby bus stop, get in touch with the school's assistant principal. We don't stop at everyone's driveways in Worcester, but your child should, if he or she is bused, be able to get to a bus stop safely.
• Remember that requested supplies are not required! We are not funding school supplies adequately, so if you can help, it's appreciated, but requests for supplies--or for checks to cover classroom supplies--are requests only. And if you're hearing otherwise, please let me know.
• Yes, some elementary class numbers are high; we did cut 23 elementary positions in this year's budget. The way that the remaining to-be-assigned teachers are placed is largest classes, highest number of kids impacted first (as adding a teacher lowers all class sizes of that grade). There's "a handful" of teachers left to be assigned; we have some elementary classes over 30. And the only way to fix this is to adequately fund education. We don't. 
• That student handbook your child brought home? Don't just sign and return the back page; give it a read and then hang on to it! 

Please keep the queries coming, and I'll field them as I get them! 

Quarterly report

report here
Allen: bottom line has not changed
projecting about a $300,000 deficit in all accounts
not a concern that administration has
summer school starts in July so it's on next fiscal year
day by day subs in deficit
workers compensation: "no surprise...has run over in every year"
this year will budget "more closely in line with actual spending"
vehicle maintenance: $35,000 in deficit,, mostly due to price of fuel, also maintenance
utility account: new city electricity contract is a 10% increase over previous, also not seeing ESCo savings show up
Foley: do we know why we are not receiving ESCo savings?
Allen: working with the city on those; perhaps as part of future report, can give some detail on that
"we're hoping that we'll start seeing some savings on that"
Foley asks for a follow up report
"I suppose you don't want us to tinker with workers' compensation for the budget"
Ramirez: increase in autistic students? which line item?
personnel services is in district, tuition
Novick: is FY15 based on seeing ESCo savings? No.
instructional materials still frozen with $300,000 in it? to balance
principals have asked that if funds are going to frozen, freeze them up front so that it's equal

Out of paper?

A bit of a supplies update for those Worcester parents out there who might be getting pleas for school supplies now:

Back at the second quarter budget report, which we talked about at the end of January, we got the news about the Spirit of Knowledge students returning to WPS and the large increase in students with autism in the district. As part of that report, we received a report that the $10 per pupil of supply funds that customarily is frozen until the second half of the year would need to stay frozen to balance the budget.
I suspect that for many this got lost in the larger numbers surrounding the SoKA students and the increase in special education, but it is one that you now may be hearing about.
Also, keep this in mind for FY15, as the worst case scenario calls for a cut in the per pupil supply budget of $5 each. 

Increase in students: increase of budget?

Biancheria: students back from Spirit of Knowledge, need for supplies for students that have enrolled
Boone: enrolled in seven different schools
all across the city (except Worcester Tech, as there's no midyear enrollment there)
nominal to moderately significant
Allen: generally instruction supply dollars are based on enrollment a year ago
changes our charter school tuition and reimbursement; happens quarterly
would happen later this month
City Council sets tax rate next Tuesday; finalizing with city what the change and increase funding to Worcester Public Schools would be since Spirit of Knowledge
in a Friday letter tomorrow, ahead of the City Council agenda coming out tomorrow
allocation recommendation on December 19 meeting "really in three areas":

• placement of Spirit of Knowledge students
• budget deficits
• resources for FY15

FY13 First Quarter report: updated with notes

Find the back-up here
Account by account here

Update: sorry, I was asking questions, and so missed posting any notes. Here are a few from last night's meeting.

As per usual, the first quarter account has the "vacancy factor" for several accounts, as positions that became empty at the end of last year or over the summer weren't filled immediately. Thus several accounts have projected balances from salaries that did not need to be used for that time.

Currently, there are 12 custodians out on workers' compensation, which is why there is a projected balance in this account and is (partly) why there is a projected deficit in the workers' compensation account.

Personal services and tuition are both projecting deficits at this point (of $130,000 and $200,000, respectively) due to increased need and projected increased costs due to potential placements out-of-district.

Instructional supplies and materials is the account has the reserve we've set aside for changes in charter school assessment (this doesn't entirely get sorted out until the city sets the tax rate). There's $350,000 in this account for that; in looks as though we're going to get hit to the tune of $528,527 this year.

Facilities ordinary maintenance is projecting a deficit of $70,000 at this point, due to the increase in the trash removal contract. We're now paying $1.82 per cubic yard for trash and $.89 per cubic yard for recycling (and will be through July 10, 2015). In an effort to bring this cost down, we'll be piloting a program to cut down (or eliminate) liquids in the lunchroom trash, as liquids can be 20% or more of the weight of cafeteria trash. We also had a bit of conversation around increasing recycling and the implementation of composting (particularly at North High, which has a composter in their kitchen).

Check your comparisons

My sympathies to my compatriots on the Wachusett School Committee on what I can only describe as a gruesome school committee meeting last night, that ended with cuts of over $1.2 million. What positions (because it will be positions) will be cut will be determined at their next meeting on Thursday. Proposed is cutting all library staff and fifteen teaching positions, plus an elementary principal, and a number of service cuts, including athletic transportation. The teaching cuts will result in some classes of 28.

I was thinking in this light of Worcester's FY13 budget and also this list on "hidden costs" in public schools...most of which don't apply to Worcester:

• We don't expect kids to buy their summer reading 
• We don't charge sports fees. 
• We don't charge bus fees. 
• We don't charge technology fees. 
• We don't charge for extracurriculars 
• We don't charge parking fees. 

We fought to bring down class sizes this year (and you'll have to hunt to find one as high as 28).
We have free, full-day kindergarten in every school in the district.
We're bringing back elementary librarians, and we have librarians in our middle and high schools.
Every elementary school has either a full-time or teaching assistant principal.
We added school nurses this year, so we're completely staffed (finally!) at the elementary level..
We've never gotten rid of art or music, and students across the district can get free instrument lessons in elementary schools.
We raised our student supply budget this year.
We offer (without charge) dual language immersion programs at three elementary schools in the city.
We expanded (again) the number of Advanced Placement courses we offer (and we don't charge for them).
We've added Mandarin Chinese to the high school, so kids who started in middle school can continue.
We've added to the engineering program at Doherty and the health sciences programs at North.
We offer a huge number of chances, places, connections to get kids into everything from the UMass Medical School to local colleges to local businesses for everything from college credits to work experience to internships.
...And this is a list literally off the top of my head.

I say none of this to run down our neighboring districts; we're a larger system, we have more options in some ways, and we get more of our support from the state.

At a time, though, when way too many decisions about who's doing "well" and who's not are made by this chart right here, it's useful to consider other ways we could be looking at what we're offering kids.

Chalk

And, in honor of that vanishing (alas!) bit of schoolteaching, an essay on chalk.
Check out the electron microscope picture of it!

As much as they might like to deny it, money matters

Please read the excellent article in the latest edition of Commonwealth magazine on the Catch 22 the state foundation formula has now placed high need and lower income districts. The districts covered are Orange and Fall River, but (as has said by others) you could put Worcester in for Orange and tell the same story.
As local aid has dropped but required school spending has incrementally increased:

“That we’re having to argue over whether to fund the schools or keep a third shift of police is egregious,” said School Committee member Joan Cohen-Mitchell after a meeting this spring to discuss the town’s dire budget condition. “This is an awful situation.”
Kathy Reinig, a member of the town’s Board of Selectmen, says Orange’s back is against the wall. “We want to fund our schools above the required level, we want to provide services everyone needs—but we can’t,” she says.

budget: account by account

School committee approved $87,000
out of state travel approved (this is a zero)
in state travel: $62,500
Allen comments that this is largely for in-city travel between schools by itinerant teachers
out-of-state travel is paid for grants or other sources
Day-by-day subs: O'Connell asks for recommended number of subs per day; is it funded enough?
Foley points out that this account is decreasing $35,000
passes as amended