Worcester Finance and Operations takes up transportation (and the second quarter)

The agenda is here;
Second quarter report is up first, as Superintendent Binienda intends to attend (unusually) for transportation.
Balance being run plus charter hold aside being used for textbooks, security at Worcester Tech, and building repairs/environmental abatement
Mr. Foley says he's thrilled to see a full staff and vacancies covered in custodial.
pleased to see textbook allocation
Miss McCullough: nice to see utilities in positive this time
subcommittee votes to approve transfers as recommended

On to bid specifications for transportation
Mr. Foley asks administration to give summary of report, will allow questions from subcommittee, then take public comment

Allen: 223 vehicles transporting about 12,000 students each day
administration has conducted an analysis of self-facilitated transportation
as has been done in a number of other areas, zero-based budgeting
goes through history of district, of surrounding districts, of transportation audit
have conducted visits to districts that have switched to in-district services
Recommendation is a phased approached to student transportation that will possibly lead to full-self-conducted transportation in the future
first 7D vans switching
"the plan the superintendent has put forth would be this phased approach"
then will wish to review bid specs
next school year will be fifth year of a five year contract

Binienda interested in sending
"have felt that Durham has done a good job of meeting with us and addressing any issues"
meet with WPS transportation weekly; admin monthly
point of meetings is to bring up challenges and try to meet them
"And I really feel that they have done their best on that"
have worked on My Spot (GPS app)
have been working on a direct line from Durham to transporation
"have also felt their being very generous to us" to send staff to DCU Center
joint production  from South and Burncoat to Hanover
"never been a time that I've called them that they haven't gone an extra length for us"
"they stay positive on the collaboration that we have"

Allen on bid specs:
unless we can hold the contractor for the item we're not adding it
(thus for example, block heaters eliminated: "either they run or they don't run" says Allen)
supervisors required at both locations
elimination of substitute drivers now left to Durham ("again, either the bus runs or it doesn't run" and they get paid accordingly)
page 17 and 18 include new service credits that district would recover
made at recommendation of current contractor

Foley: no problem with the bid specs as recommended
find report
"inconsistency of report" with recommendation
"as I read the report, I find something very different here"
"this has been a tough year for bussing"
"what was included in that report...is the fact that Durham has not been as responsive this year as they should have been"
getting from point A to point B
cameras not working
hoping to have GPS to have real time monitoring a year or so ago
the first question is "I haven't seen Durham performing"
"I'm concerned it's a national trend"
"our eleven buses have given us far better services...and greater levels of flexibility"
Binienda: "I don't agree with that: I think Durham has been responsive"
"we had some challenges ourselves"
"it's a process...they've tried to work with us"
"I truthfully don't think that this year has been difficult because of Durham"
Foley: "I think people would disagree with that"
would we have capacity?
Binienda: "We don't have the capacity...very few places take over transportation"
"We right now have our hands full with improving instruction and turnaround schools"
Foley: trend nationally is much more taking over transportation out there
would say to superintendent if we ran our own system could provide our own 'free' bussing as needed
and with far less expensive field trips
projection is to save $36M over ten years, and that's backloaded
$2M for first five years, significantly more over subsequent years
Allen: agree that it would be backend savings in latter years
Foley: from a cost savings point of year
Binienda: we don't definitely know we're going to make that savings
"the work, and who's going to be running the bus company...we're not a bus company system"
"don't have the capacity to do that and we don't have the expertise"
Foley: saving $400K
Binienda: believe that some that funding is rebates
Note the report says this: 

Overall, the transition of eleven district-operated big buses saved the district $402,000, with $208,000 invested in new support positions for transportation operations (see pages 62 and 176-177 of the FY19 budget book) resulting in FY19 savings of $194,000.

It is a different line than the contracted bus services Foley: we do take on in-house services that we have done very well and saved significant money
really a single operation nationally is Durham
"I worry about that...we're looking at a reduced time frame...any vendor will be looking to maximize their dollars...than over a five year contract"
driving this price through the roof and there's very little competition for the vendor
puts us at real risk of a very high bid
Binienda could come in lower

McCullough: can appreciate district focus on instruction
"one of the most frequent complaints I've gotten from community members has been bussing"
will change in bid open to other contractors?
Allen: as Mr. Foley correctly points out, there are probably only two contractors who could bid on a contract of this size
McCullough: it's a safety factor
in some cases parents not even calling anymore
"knowing it will save money and improve service"
"can we at least have a comparison of services?"
could we have buses for special services?
Allen: if we had more buses, yes
McCullough: routing, would make sense to take over sooner
would support at least looking to see a comparison over two to three years
have been contacted with a member of the Framingham School Committee
"this year it seems more prevalent than ever"

Comparetto: share concerns of using a private, for-profit company
"horrible customer service and really bad communication"
looking for best practices
best practice across the country: cities are bringing these services in house
have been having this conversation for ten years now

Monfredo: "very interesting topics"
"to be honest with you I haven't heard of many districts successfully providing transportation for our students"
at least take time to see what would work and does not work
"do think phasing in makes sense than jumping in on something that we're not even sure of"

Biancheria: a couple of things we need before we can look at this
need some examples: how many employees, how will house
when we look at the city of Worcester, we have WRTA, what are those issues?
do we use Worcester Airport as an example?
"we're not in the business of running buses; we're in the business of education"
"very fortunate that we've stayed with employees in the Worcester Public Schools"
"have I been happy with Durham under the past year? No...but that doesn't mean I would sit back and run my own bus company"
"doesn't mean we won't create additional challenges"
think we should "get the information compiled"
maybe we need to back up a little and look at the actual savings
"when you have bus drivers, you have unions...what would those union stipulations be?"
"need to look at all the costs...certainly open for all the getting this information together"
"communicated to everyone and the public"'


Allen (to Q from McCullough): the $400K was entirely through taking back routes, not taking credits

Valentin Goins: "have never had the problems we have had this year"
starting in the first week this year...late from August to February
"they get marked late...staff is rushing them...burden is being placed entirely on students to solve a systems issues"
systems solution
"staff should say that I should call the bus company...that's absurd...that's not a job we should be doing"
"to say that lack of existing capacity stop us..." does not make sense

Foley: still see the need to have a comparative bidding process
what would be timeline to take over service?
Allen: one is space and one is vehicles
"some time...but not years"
"next one is around employees...clearly the biggest issue we would face"

Foley:
MOTION: to prepare two year with optional third year; to prepare a five year plan; and to have WPS to submit a bid to self-operate transportation
Allen: would go out end of month, would receive bids first week or so of May
motion passes
(note that it will still need to pass the full committee on March 21)

Second quarter of FY20 for Worcester

Before I go back to talking about transportation, this from the FY19 second quarter report caught my eye:

Nineteen accounts are moving to the new contract rates and the price has been reduced from $0.848/therm to $.49183/therm. With the remaining 36 accounts, these will return to the Eversource default supply at a winter rate of $0.5982/therm. The previous rate on these accounts were $0.848 per therm. This reduction of contracted rates, as well as a milder heating season has resulted in significant savings.

The district is saving over half a million dollars on utilities this year!
This and the salary vacancies means that administration is recommending WPS buys textbooks! 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, March 3

You can find the agenda here.
Bill Coleman wants to talk about substitute teachers' compensation.
There is no report of the superintendent.
F&O will be reporting out from their Monday meeting.
There is a report back on textbooks (timely, as the district is also buying $700,000 worth of new ones!).
There is a report back on the projected cost of a gymnastics team (which doesn't look as though it has changed much since I asked in 2013).
There's a request to authorize adminstration to have a five year contract for environmental management services (the authorization is for the length).
There are several donations being received.
And Miss Biancheria would like reports on Read Across America Day, the assignment of full-time teachers for long-term absence, and the Recovery High School.
The School Committee is also receiving the proposed relocation plan which was covered in yesterday's T&G. The district has been renting space for Chandler Elementary for a number of years, so the school has been split between its building on Chandler Street and a building at the YMCA on Main. The school is continuing to grow, and managing the single school in two spaces is...less than ideal. Plus, of course, the rental costs money...and not just any money: rentals don't count towards Net School Spending. Add to that the complications of a single administrator covering the grade 9 and 10 program at Fanning as well as at the Creamer Center up on Granite Street, and you start to see why some of these moves make a lot of sense. And, frankly, anything that gets the Parent Information Center someplace that makes some sense to parents (like the central administration building) is progress.
I hope to make this one: 7 pm, City Hall. 

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.

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday at 7

The Worcester School Committee meets Thursday, December 3 at 7. You can find the agenda here.
The report of the superintendent this week--the first report Dr. Rodrigues is giving as interim--is his entry plan.

There are no subcommittee reports this week.
We have a response coming back from administration on the updated numbers on the state cherry sheet (worse than they were when we passed the budget in June) and what the final cost on gas will be, as that contract was still being negotiated when we passed the budget. And while it's lower than the projection, skim down to the utilities line in the first quarter update on where we're expected to be on building utilities for why we won't be hearing a recommendation to move funds. 

In the ongoing settling up of the student activities accounts, we're being asked to accept a donation of $6,261.81 to Doherty. 
We're being asked to accept $400 from Shaw's for Heard Street School.
We have several requests for recognitions.
Mr. Monfredo is asking that administration work to get more mentors for AVID.
Miss Biancheria is asking that the security audit be discussed at the December 17 meeting and also at the February 25 meeting.
She's also asking a number of questions around textbooks: how many are rebound, how many we have versus need, how many are on the computer, how many students don't have textbooks, and if there's a central inventory.

I'm clearing out old items (lest I linger on agendas!), so I have a list of items I'm pulling off of subcommittee agendas and out of administration (many of which have been answered, anyway).

We have the annual Head Start report. 
We have the collaborative's audit.
We're being asked to accept an alternative education grant for $20,000 (not clear on what it's for, exactly).
We're being asked to accept STARS Residency grants for Columbus Park and for Jacob Hiatt (for neat stuff, incidently: check out the backup!)
We're being asked to recognize the WPS Foundation for their constuction at the One City, One Library branches, and being asked to accept the donation of the materials and equipment there. 

Every six years, the state comes in and does a Coordinated Program Review (which, inevitably and much to my confusion, gets abbreviated 'CPR') to check on on how the district is doing with adhering to federal regulations. Ours has now come back and it includes:

• the CPR report with sections on special education, civil rights, and career and vocation education
• the CPR review of English Language Learning in the district
• the Title I review (it looks like the backup on this one got scanned out of order; page 1 is page 2) with NO FINDINGS
• the Title IIA review and more here (that's teacher training), with "Commended" status on two categories of professional development
• the safety inspections of our vocational education areas in the high schools

Note that the reports came through a few months ago; I expect that we'll have a report on what has already been changed or improved in a number of these areas.


There is an executive session for a grievance.

Update on "key state initiatives"

and we've got a PowerPoint: let me know if you want photos of it
curriculum frameworks, educator evaluator, PARCC, and district assessments

Framework implementation proceeding by not complete: 80% have implemented curricula, but only 53% have textbooks and other materials
most agree it will have a positive impact, but most feel that they need more training
Educator evaluation: most agree it provides more meaningful feedback, opportunities to reflect on their practice
most view their evaluation as fair
majority of principals view system as fair, fewer than half of teachers view system as a whole as fair
District Determined Measures; challenging piece of work
less than half have ID'd administration and scoring protocols, set parameters for growth, or systems to manage data
time and funding viewed as major impediment (not negotiations)
On PARCC: need more training on technology portion
60% of principals feeling mostly or somewhat prepared
most students who were in field test felt that questions covered material that they had covered this year
principals and central office are generally more positive on reforms than teachers are
but generally improving over time

District assessement practice: survey of superintendents (or of the 36% that responded)
most said they used to see if they'd met learnign goals or academic needs
less than half to preparet of MCAS or predict student performance
uh, let's look at the way you asked the question there
55% felt had right amount of time;
driven by district level rather than school level
"representative sample of districts": 35 districts
in each case talked to a district level person and a school level person
average of district required assessments of 6.7 tests
Level 2 districts and districts with low proficiency levels require most tests
time preparing for tests: large majority spend 5 day or less
did not see a difference between ELL and special ed students
I'm just going to observe here that there is a lot of head shaking going on in  the audience, particularly from educators
"really challenging for districts to quantify"
Achieve has put out a tool on that: four districts going to go through it with us

A few post-meeting notes on the math curriculum

I was not getting online during this morning's TLSS meeting about the math curriculum. Some retrospective notes:
The contract goes into effect after it has been accepted by both the School Committee and the City Council (because it is for six years). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is ready to go when we are. They're front-loading the contract with non-consummable resources, as well as the books and such that are consummables (there aren't any hardcovers for individual students).
The contract forwarded to the School Committee did not have the clause allowing WPS to back out of the contract after this year if it did not meet our expectations. The only termination clause from our side in the contract we received was if funds were not passed to fulfill the contract. A contract including a termination clause for curriculuar cause will be forwarded to us before our November 20th meeting.
This curriculum was created post-Common Core (it hasn't just plugged things in). It also has a large literacy component.
There is "a large parent component" to these resources, both on paper and online. There are also administrative plans for parent sessions at school and district levels in coordination with the Family Academy, to be sure that parents have chances to be comfortable with the materials.
Parents will be given a chance to weigh in, as will (at least) sixth grade students.
The materials themselves will be--we're still working out how--available for parental review, both at CPPAC and (possibly) at individual schools or downtown (or both!). I'll update once we know more.
There was a stress that, while this is a district-wide curriculum, it is but one resource being used within WPS."We need to look at teacher-created materials in particular."
Also, in response to a conversation about which test Massachusetts might go with: "Teachers should not be preparing students to take tests. Teachers should be preparing students to master standards."

More of a summary on FY13 thus far

When we last left you, we were facing a $1.3 million budget gap for FY13, which was being closed by a project cut of 19 elementary positions. Here's where last night, after much number crunching on the part of the finance department, ended up last night.

Expenses for FY13 are increasing by $17 million.
Funding (from state and city) is increasing by $11.4 million.
This leaves us with a budget gap of $5.6 million which is proposed to be closed by the following:

$1 million savings in building utilities*
$1 million in health insurance savings** 
$1 million in special ed tuition savings***
$0.6 million due to a cut of 6 teaching positions****
$0.5 million in one-time textbook expenses
$0.2 million in unemployment*****
$0.1 million in savings from ending the early retirement benefit
$0.1 million in savings from Jobs for Bay State Grads
$1.1 million from all other areas



May 9 at North High at 6 pm is the public comment session. Please come!




 _______________________________________________________
*(you might remember the Committee has set this aside for environmental work; you'll see that in the budget)
**continued savings due to migration due to health insurance changes in contract
***The biggest chunk of this due to a rate freeze from the special ed collaborative for member districts.
****3 elementary, 1 teaching assistant principal, 4 high school positions
*****if you don't lay people off, you don't have to pay unemployment.

in "perplexing" School Committee issues...

In honor of St. Patrick's Day, a hat tip to Al Southwick for an excellent Worcester history column which gave a new meaning to "you spent three meetings discussing what!?"

At its May meeting in 1911, the Worcester School Committee finally resolved a perplexing issue: it decreed that St. Patrick was born in Scotland. The vote was opposed by those who believed he was born elsewhere.

As the Telegram story put it: “The last three monthly meetings of the School Committee have been much devoted to a discussion of the birthplace of St. Patrick, and at the two previous meetings of the committee attempts made to have books telling that St. Patrick was born in Scotland and England adopted as a textbook failed because a two-thirds vote of the full committee could not be mustered. The rules make necessary a two-thirds vote for the adoption of a textbook. When the book was first introduced, it stated that St. Patrick was born in Britain. The authoress changed it to read Scotland and at the April meeting an attempt was made to get it through in its revised form. Opponents of the books wanted the birthplace of the saint changed to France.”

And for the record: "Britain," referring as it does to the island, is certainly right; "Scotland" possibly right; "France" pretty definitely wrong.

School Committee meeting TOMORROW

Sorry for the late posting on this one; it's not a regular meeting. We've got a bit of budget business.
The Worcester School Committee will be meeting tomorrow afternoon at 5pm on the fourth floor of the Durkin Administration Building.
The agenda isn't posted online (and Google Docs is being squirrelly about loading it; sorry!), but the only item besides voting acceptance of an $85,000 grant for summer work for kids who've not yet passed the MCAS is a bit of reworking the budget.
Staff have switched health plans and that has resulted in savings for the district of about $1.2 million at this time.
The administration is recommending that $600,000 of this go to teacher salaries; that 242,000 go to instructional assistant salaries; and that $423,688 go to instructional supplies and materials.
The textbook funds will go to upgrading all secondary textbooks, per the request of the Superintendent's Student Advisory Panel.
The IA salaries will restore 7 special ed IAs.
The teachers salaries will restore 6 special ed teachers, 3 secondary teachers, and add 1 secondary teacher (English at Doherty; science at North; 2 science at South).


The other summer meetings are scheduled for July 21 and August 25, in both cases at 4pm at City Hall.

Instructional supplies

$63 per pupil again this year
which isn't enough again
approved

TLSS Standing Committee

(Foley makes a motion to approve before O'Connell even stands up...note that it is now 10 pm and we still haven't gotten to general business)

The only item is to approve elementary science textbooks.