On Buses and Budgets

The Standing Commitee on Business (or what my eldest referred to as "the money committee") met tonight. Two major issues on the table: buses and budgets.

1. The bus contract is up for renegotiation. There's an amazing level of detail in the bus contract. A few things I learned tonight: we're starting off by paying $3 a gallon for gas (but it goes up and down with the market). We've got video cameras on the buses (we're now looking for a more modern system as part of the new contract). All buses to be used can't be more than ten years old. Oh, and no, that driver should not be on his cell phone: it's against state law.
2. The budget, or rather two. Business committee gets an update on where we are on money, so FY10 is part of the program. We've hired eight additional teachers (for class size, scheduling, or special ed reasons) since the budget passed. We saved some money over the summer on air conditioning. We lost funding (through 9c cuts) for some school nurses (it's a 50% reduction in the EHS grant, for those who follow this) but they're scrambling to pay for it some other way. And here's an interesting point: the federal and state legislature has extended unemployment benefits, however, city and state governments are not reimbursed for that. So we are losing some substantial money there. As for FY11, you've seen the list (but the business office would like you to be able to recite it in your sleep, so I'll give it to you again): charter school funding formula change; extended the retirement schedule; eliminate private and parochial school transportation requirements; freeze out-of-district tuition rates. This is what the administration would like to see happen on Beacon Hill; if it all did, it would add up to $5.7 million in savings for WPS.

Keeping it in perspective...

Perhaps you missed, in all the reporting last week, the news that Race to the Top awards to states would be scaled to population. Small population? Not as much money, regardless of how well you score.

So just how much money could Massachusetts get?

Massachusetts falls in Catagory 3, which is $150-$250 million.


Sounds like quite a lot until you realize that the Worcester Public Schools budget last year was more than that. Divide that up among the cities (figuring in the Title 1 angle), and you're not looking at much more than 5-10% of Worcester Public Schools' budget.

Maybe.

Because I know sometimes it helps to read what others have written...

...here's what I sent in yesterday:

Dear Senators Chandler and Moore, and Representatives Spellane, O'Day, Pedone, Fresolo, and Binienda:

I am writing to urge you to vote against the Education Reform Act of 2009.

The original proposal has been a negative one for Worcester from the beginning; as you may know, lifting the charter cap in Massachusetts and thus allowing two more charter schools in Worcester would cost the city $5 million next year. As the school budget is projected to be running a $26 million deficit next year already, this is not going to help.

It also has had a sketchy at best relationship with teachers, as it has moved away from the contractual relationship our unions have had with districts. Though the claim has been that such a new "flexibility" is necessary, the variety of working conditions that teachers in Worcester have under contract shows that not to be so.

For both of these reasons, I went into the State House to testify against the original three bills in September.

The bill's evolution while in the Joint Committee on Education has only made it worse. It now strips teachers' unions of arbitration, a basic right allowing the unions to represent for their members. It strips School Committees of the power to negotiate with unions, centralizing that power in the superintendent, and further removing the power of the purse from the people (whom the School Committees are elected to represent). The bill pushes us down a road to greater privatization of public schools, giving very vague outlines for the sequence by which schools would be declared "chronically underperforming" and be privatized. It also allows for privatization of the bottom 20% of schools, and there is always a bottom 20%, even if all schools are performing well.

All of this from the progressive state of Massachusetts, the home of public education?

This bill, if passed would be a disaster for Worcester. The charter school cost I've mentioned above, in particular, will add to an already difficult situation. Worcester is also bound to be hard hit by the privatization plan, as we have schools that are declared "chronically underperforming" under some of the rules of No Child Left Behind (Ieading, in some cases, to schools being praised by the state and criticized by the fed, or vice versa). This will not improve our relationship or negotiating position with the teachers' union, to say the least. Taking the power of negotiation from School Committees, moving it farther away from the people, is moving in the wrong direction.

I ask you to please, please vote against this bill.

Deb Meier gets it right...

again, as she so often does:

President Obama's message throughout the campaign was a reiteration of the concept of the "common good," at a time when we were experiencing the impact of a society built around "the more I get, the better." But I agree with you, Diane. What we're hearing now is rather different than what we expected. Neither Education Secretary Arne Duncan's failure in Chicago, nor the mayor's in N.Y.C., nor Michele Rhee's in Washington, D.C., are on the table; it's as though we can sweep that inconvenient evidence under the rug by a constant repetition of good PR.

Producing schools that do right by all children AND by the nation is, in fact, more complex than rocket science. It means, for example, concerning ourselves with the children in that other ward across the levees, not just our own. Democracy works most easily when our personal short-term interests and the interests of the least advantaged match. But democracy can't depend on that.

Boston's RTTT hearing

And for those looking for another look at how the hearing in Boston went, here's EdWeek's report.

Finally got a number

The Education Reform Act of 2009 is Senate Bill 2205.

I just found an alert to MTA members which covers the collective bargaining/termination end.

Keep those calls and emails going. I hear there still could be amendments going in on Monday. It's going to need significant amendment to be fixed!

Contact your legislators TODAY!

The Education Reform Act of 2009 is being pushed along quickly. If we're going to stop this, we've got to get to Massachusetts legislators TODAY, as it could go to the floor on Beacon Hill on Monday.

Here are a few key points to consider (and pass along):

1. It is percentage-based system that can lead to significantly expanded privatization of a key public resource, our schools. The 20% of lowest-scoring schools and 5% percent of districts are "eligible" to be declared "underperforming" based on MCAS reading and math scores. By one estimate I've read, an estimated 70% or more schools in MA will not make that threshold by 2014.

The steps from "underperforming" to "chronically underperforming" are subjective...and once a school is there, it can be privatized.

And remember: there is always a bottom 20%.

2. The new RTTT rules count lifting the charter cap as only 40 out of a possible 500 points in an application. Even if we (the state of Massachusetts) want to apply from RTTT funds (something which I'd like to see more debate on, frankly), we don't have to lift the charter cap to do it.

And this bill doesn't do enough, still, to ensure that charters are quality institutions, that only good charters are granted (the administration has a questionable history on this), that charters truly serve all in the community, etc.

3. It centralizes authority, moving authority to bargain with unions, close schools, and make declarations the sole province of the superintendent as overseen by the MA Commissioner. It moves us away from the classic Massachusetts model of local control (answering to the local community) of local schools. This is the centralized model that has, for example, just been declared a failure in Chicago. We do not want to go there.

4. Did I mention it would cost Worcester $5 million next year?

You can get your reps info here:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/

And if you're in Worcester: contact the whole Worcester delegation!