Jill Lepore writes about Plyler v Doe in the New Yorker

There's a thoughtful piece from Jill Lepore in the New Yorker magazine on the Plyler v Doe decision, affirming the right of undocumented immigrants to an education. It considers the wider implications of it, as well as what it might mean for a court that includes Brett Kavanaugh.

On getting less money from the state (and running your numbers)

I'm always hesitant to do this, because I want to encourage local reporters to cover education issues including funding, and I'm always a bit concerned that this will come off as hammering them, when in many cases they're really trying. In a lot of cases, though, it's less the reporter than the local official(s) who are either not understanding or are willfully misrepresenting what's happening, and clarity, when it comes to education funding, is really important.
In this case from Foxborough, I think there's just more that needs to be explained. When we're talking about a print paper, I'm well aware that space is an issue; it's why this blog exists, for example. The online universe, though, allows for more room, and I would really encourage local papers to take advantage of that.
In Foxborough's case, let's first specify that their Chapter 70 aid is about 19% of their foundation budget. Their foundation budget for FY19 is $28.6M; their combined effort yield--what I'd call "what can the town afford to pay"--is $23.5M. I can't find the FY19 budget online (I hate that), but the district spent $38M in FY17, so I'll venture they're spending well over $28M for this coming year, as well.
Foxborough for FY19 is a minimum increase district; they're not seeing an increase due to changes in their enrollment and such, so they're getting $30/pupil as an increase, which is $79,680.
That isn't the only place the district gets state aid from, however, and this is where the catch comes in; the town is speaking of net aid, and they're adding in the charter reimbursement, as well.
And here's where I raise an eyebrow:

The town has received $77,940 less for fiscal year 2019 compared to last fiscal year, and assessments have increased by $29,059, according to data on the state Department of Revenue website.
“The net state aid went down by over a $100,000,” Town Manager William Keegan said. “It was unfortunate, and we didn’t anticipate this.”

The Department of Revenue report discussed is here; if you type in Foxborough, you'll see Foxborough receives $9.3M in aid this year; there's $375,815 in charter reimbursement added to the Chapter 70 aid.
Last year, though, Foxborough received $531,275 in charter reimbursement, added to their $8.8M in Chapter 70 aid. So there's a net loss.
But...they didn't anticipate this? Remember, charter reimbursement comes for CHANGES in charter enrollment (charter kids getting more kids or more expensive kids), and it's supposed to be 100% the first year, and 25% for three years after that. Now, the out years have never been funded, so please tell me Foxborough wasn't counting on that, but even so, unless their local charter schools were getting significantly more pupils, Foxborough was always going to receive less in charter reimbursement than they had the prior year.
The one thing that is a wrench in the deal is the state is only funding the first year reimbursement at what looks like 90.9%, so if Foxborough (and others) were counting on 100%, there is a difference. It's a difference of only $37,605, though.
Once Foxborough had its spreadsheet on aid and knew it would only get a minimum increase, and once it had the projections DESE shares on charter enrollment...they could have figured this out.
And this line:

He added that efforts at the state level to get reimbursed for 100 percent of charter school costs, including a bill filed by state Rep. Jay Barrows, had been unsuccessful.

...muddies the issue, as currently, districts aren't, by law, even promised reimbursement of 100% of costs, just 100% of reimbursement of changes in the enrollment. 

Remember: you're a better advocate if you can accurately represent your complaint!

If you decide to go to Worcester School Committee tonight

It's been really hot, and people are beyond irritated about how it's been in the school buildings. A few tips if you decide to take this to the School Committee tonight (7pm, City Hall, yes, there's AC):

• The Worcester School Committee (unlike the City Council) does not have a public comment period on the agenda. They will as a custom suspend the rules to allow a member of the public to speak to an item on the agenda, however; it's a good idea to tip off the clerk (that's Dr. Friel; she sits to the Mayor's right as you look at the dias) ahead of time that you'd like to do that. If you're going tonight, you could address school building conditions under the Finance and Operations Subcommittee report coming back, which had many facilities items on it, or under item gb #8-123.4, which has a section dealing with repairs. 
• Do keep in mind that under Mass General Law, public comment at School Committee meetings is ALWAYS at the discretion of the Chair. If he's in a good mood, the Mayor will give you three minutes and not stick to it.
• Worcester does have school buildings with AC (largely those constructed after in the past several decades); it largely does not have buildings that have been retrofitted with AC (Forest Grove being the big exception that comes to mind; it got it as part of the city-funded rehab in the 1990's). 
• It isn't as easy as getting a whole bunch of single units and plugging them all in (even setting aside the cost of those units); air conditioning units are a huge draw and Worcester has a lot of classrooms. The additional electrical load would be staggering (plus the fire department gets techy about lots being plugged in). 
• Yes, the administration building does have AC, but (as I keep pointing out on Twitter) most of who works in the admin building are clerks and secretaries and they work year round. (Plus, DAB is of the same era as the buildings that are the worst right now; it was built in 1890) You can of course ignore this, but I suggest that line of argumentation won't work.
• So what ARE good arguments? I'd start with messaging, as having leadership that talks about buildings being "comfortable" is not helpful; also, parents haven't heard from the district at all since last week. Certainly, one can point out what choices other districts have made (cancellations, dismissals, rescheduling). You could note that by Worcester's own analysis, operations and maintenance was underfunded by $15M in FY17:
  
  ..and while that's a foundation budget thing, it also isn't happening places where districts are funded over foundation. You might also note that the city has been funding captial expenses at a flat $3M a year for...some time now, and while the new high schools (and replacement windows and such) are great, it isn't taking care of basic capital needs of the buildings.  As I mentioned yesterday, the district is already having to postpone needed scheduled boiler replacements to replace ones that have simply failed. Capital funding is something School Committee could better advocate for, and it's also an issue to take up with your city councilor. 
• If you can't make it tonight, contact information for the School Committee is here, for the City Council is here, and the superintendent's office is here. 

Two pieces on kids and race that you should read (plus books)

Two on target pieces that I've seen in recent days on kids and race and schools that you should read:


Ijeoma Oluo was interviewed by School Library Journal on confronting racism in schools.

“I encounter more resistance from educators than just about any other sector when it comes to talking about race,” Oluo says. “I don’t think teachers want to be a part of the problem. Teachers are underappreciated, often very selfless people working very, very hard for children. To then have someone say, ‘You know you’re probably perpetuating some racist things in your classrooms? Do you know you’re also probably contributing to the oppression of students of color?’ That doesn’t sit well with people who genuinely love children.” 

When faced with denial or defensiveness, Oluo presents the facts, citing statistics such as the racial gap in test scores, the rate of suspensions of black preschoolers, and the number of arrests of students of color in high school which are not correlated to the amount of violence, drugs or truancy in schools but to the number of black and brown students in schools, she says.

Oluo wrote So You Want to Talk About Race, which has a chapter on the school-to-prison pipeline and race in schools. Note what she says is the first thing white teachers should do in schools:

I need educators to be less afraid of acknowledging race. You start by acknowledging the students of color. [For example], even if you don’t have Asian students, but especially if you have Asian students, you need to be looking at your lessons and finding examples of Asian Americans doing great things in society. Then you need to say, ‘This was an Asian American.’ And the look of shock on their face—‘Wait a minute, you want me to just say Asian American? ‘
Yes, actually say it. They’re stunned. In fact, a college professor actually guffawed at me the other day when I said he needed to acknowledge great black people in his field when talking to students. ‘You want me to just say black? I would get written up. I would get in trouble.’
Because white people think noting someone’s race is racist.
Yes. But what people, especially teachers, don’t realize is white is the default in this country. Just because you don’t have to say white, doesn’t mean you’re not saying white.…We have to understand when we’re teaching our students and we’re not acknowledging race, we’re saying white all the time.

Also this week: this Atlantic interview with Margaret Hagerman, author of White Kids: Growing Up With Privilege in a Racially Divided America, which has connections even to our advocacy at the state level:

I really think—and this might sound kind of crazy—that white parents, and parents in general, need to understand that all children are worthy of their consideration. This idea that your own child is the most important thing—that’s something we could try to rethink. When affluent white parents are making these decisions about parenting, they could consider in some way at least how their decisions will affect not only their kid, but other kids. This might mean a parent votes for policies that would lead to the best possible outcome for as many kids as possible, but might be less advantageous for their own child. My overall point is that in this moment when being a good citizen conflicts with being a good parent, I think that most white parents choose to be good parents, when, sometimes at the very least, they should choose to be good citizens.

Read the interviews; read the books. 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

Sorry, late posting on this
The Thursday agenda (back, note, to its regular 7 pm time) is mostly a Finance and Operations-related agenda, even setting aside the F&O report from the meeting today at 5.

Today's F&O meeting has the final account summary for FY18, an excruciatingly literal referral of page 415 of the budget book (on indirect costs), and a single page response to a list of queries from Miss Biancheria regarding facilities.
There is also an extensive update on summer work. There is A LOT (and this includes an update on South High construction!). Of concern: note in particular the list of failed boilers that have had to bump other projects; I'm counting Flagg, Wawecus, and Tatnuck Magnet as either failed or "of concern," which, along with the Claremont controls project, are bumping boiler replacement at Chandler Mag, Rice Square, Lincoln Street, and Burncoat Middle. Also, we're replacing boilers at Doherty and Burncoat High, too? And I imagine we've...like maxed out our accelerated repair projects or something, so these aren't split with MSBA? There is a LOT there; go look at it!

On Thursday's agenda, there are some recognitions. There is NO report of the superintendent. There's a posting of a non-specific executive session.

A series of reports are back, cleaning up from the budget:
There is a response on the reduction of outside vendors (specifically looking at applied behavioral analysis).
There is a (much less extensive) response on summer work PLUS a note on Harlow Street School.
There is a response on snow removal (in sum, it's in more than one acccount because it needs to be).

There is a response to an item on tutors which summarizes all action stemming from the final FY19 budget being larger than the House budget (THIS IS WORTH REVIEWING), and including a nice little summary of where we're at on FBRC. This also notes that the district budget isn't really done until the city sets the tax rate in the fall.

There's a list of which positions are funded how in the Teaching and Learning section of central admin.
There's a past year's positions list in the maintenance department.
And there's a list of where there are security personnel.

There's a somewhat vague update on Doherty High: design firm to be selected in November, then review process with community (hey school committee members: INSIST ON SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS! Make the process more like Nelson Place and less like South). The exact same backup accompanies the following item on Burncoat.

Apparently, the Committee is discussing the "Cultures of Innovations" section of the strategic plan. I hadn't realized this--had anyone?--but apparently they were discussing each section (quickly) during the summer. The plan is to adopt the whole thing Thursday night as well. What connection this has with having referred the plan for review to subcommittees, I don't know. Clearly, someone just wants to get it through without an extensive review process.

For reasons that are unclear, the administration is proposing what it is calling a policy on absence, though it appears to me to be language that pushes a notion of truancy. The administration's worrying focus on bringing back draconian (and unsupported) language, and, one supposes, action, around student absences I imagine stems from the state's change in the accountability system. It strikes me, though, that this is going to do nothing more than run more families (what to guess which ones?) into state oversight, more students into conflict with the school system, and won't actually keep more kids in schools.

There is a suggestion for a Municipal Government Day.
There is a request on for an update on the CPR training.
There is a request for an update on South High (which if someone is paying attention, will be filed, since they got one).

Finally, reading between the lines on administrative requests: TRANSPORTATION:

gb #8-259 - Administration (August 28, 2018)
To authorize the Administration to enter into contracts for the lease of property for a term of up to twenty years for the operation of student transportation for a contract term to begin in June 2020.
gb #8-260 - Administration (August 28, 2018)
To authorize the Administration to enter into contracts for the lease of school buses, special education school buses, and wheelchair buses for a term of up to five years for the operation of student transportation for a contract term to begin in June 2020.

Leasing buses and finding space for them...this is bringing transportation back in house!

No promises on live blog. 

What does last night mean for school funding?

While the big news (rightfully) this morning is Ayanna Pressley beating Michael Capuano in the Congressional race, the state rep races have implications for next steps on school funding:

In a stunning rebuke to House Speaker Robert DeLeo and his leadership team, Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez and Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing, both of Boston, lost their re-election campaigns, according to multiple Democratic sources.

(that's from State House News, so it's paywalled)

The races--particularly Nika Elugardo's race against Sanchez--have turned to a large degree on House inaction. The Safe Communities Act was certainly a big part of that, but lack of action on school funding was also part of it. The question these districts asked of Sanchez and Rushing was "great, you're in leadership, but what good is that doing your constituents?"

How this shakes out with the rest of the House turnover and what impact that has on House leadership next session remains to be seen. But losing seniority wasn't an argument that concerned people last night.
...as we saw from soon-to-be Congresswoman Pressley.

Foundation budget editorial in the T&G calls out the Legislature

Good editorial today in the Telegram, calling out the Legislature on their lack of action on the foundation budget:

What’s painful is that this issue didn’t happen overnight - it’s been building for years. Any excuses that the Legislature “ran out of time” during this two-year session ignores warnings going back a decade. The 1993 Education Reform Act, with foresight, includes a mechanism for a periodic review of the formula. A foundation budget review commission, headed by legislative and state education leaders, and incorporating a wide variety of participants that included teacher unions, began meeting in 2014 and issued a report in 2015, more than a year before the just-ended legislative term began in 2017. And if that weren’t enough, there were the threats of new suits against the state emanating from cities such as Worcester and Brockton.

I think it's a little hyper-focused on the revenue end--if anyone was, that was the House--but it hits the main points well, particularly that it isn't as if this snuck up on the Legislature all of a sudden.