NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING

PUBLIC FORUM ON BUDGET GUIDELINES

OAK HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL, LIBRARY

NOVEMBER 9, 2005, 7:30 P.M.

PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Dori Zaleznik, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Reenie Murphy, Mayor David Cohen, Superintendent Jeffrey Young

ALSO PRESENT: Rob Evans, facilitator

CALL TO ORDER

Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and thanked all in attendance for coming to this experimental forum, for the purpose of allowing for better interaction between the School Committee and the public than the traditional public comment period at regular meetings. Tonight they hope to have some dialogue on the key issues around the Budget Guidelines. For those who do not get a chance to speak this evening or have subsequent thoughts following the meeting, she encouraged people to email or write the Committee and/or attend the next two regular meetings in which this topic will continue to be discussed. She then introduced members of the Committee, as well as the facilitator, Rob Evans. Rob is a clinical and organizational psychologist, who has worked with school systems and school committees nationwide and is renowned throughout the western suburbs of Massachusetts. He is also a Newton resident, the Executive Director of Human Relations Service in Wellesley, and the author of several books.

Rob Evans welcomed the public and explained that his role this evening is to moderate the forum, so that the Committee can focus on listening and participating in the discussion. The Committee will not be making any decisions this evening and they are not looking for people to lobby for particular budget areas, rather to look at the context of the entire budget and the challenges that lie ahead. The process will involve inviting members of the public to join the Committee around the table for discussion and, when finished, to yield the seats to others in the audience so that they can hear from as many people as possible. They will attempt to wrap up at approximately 9:00 p.m. and then provide a brief summary of this evening’s topics and discuss follow-up. They will begin with a brief overview by the Superintendent around the challenges the system will be facing this year.

Jeff Young talked about needing to balance a number of things that go into making good schools. He referred to the short-term issues as a horizontal plane involving all that is needed for a successful classroom in a given year. At the same time there is a vertical plane that intersects with that which addresses long-term needs. These are needs not just within a given budget year, but within the life of the school and the district. They are attempting to create a 13 year road map for students, where they try to provide the best experience in a given year, but also have ample resources to enable the system to view the educational experience long-term. One of the ways this translates into the budget is through the curriculum, which needs to be strong, standards-based and connected. This is what they are referring to when they discuss curriculum and professional development. It not only has to do with what a child is learning today, but what they will be learning tomorrow and in successive years. So this balance between the horizontal and vertical planes is what they are attempting to achieve.

Jeff Seidman, President of the Newton Taxpayers Association, wished to address the issue of the costs associated with special education (SPED). He is concerned that if costs are not better managed they will end up jeopardizing the program. He would like to see a comparison of what Newton spends in this area compared to other communities. He would also like to see a review of the students receiving these services because he has concerns that there are some parents who are taking advantage of the system in order to gain benefits for their children. Finally, given that Newton has instituted fees for transportation and extra curricular activities, he would suggest considering having parents whose children receive SPED services contribute to the cost of this program as well.

Dori Zaleznik addressed the issue of comparing Newton’s SPED costs with other communities and expressed caution in doing so because many systems do not break out students who are transported elsewhere. Since they do not appear in the same line item in the Department of Education reports this can skew the figures.

Jeff Seidman commented that it then behooves them to identify all these criteria so that they will have facts vs. anecdotal information around differences in costs among systems.

Reenie Murphy noted that transportation is mandated for students in outside placements but the costs are not reimbursed by the State.

Anne Larner stated that the Committee is planning to discuss SPED costs at a future meeting. She agrees that they need to do a better job in explaining to the public what the costs involve and how choices are made. In terms of the user fees, there are legal restrictions on what systems can ask people to pay for and she does not believe they can charge for most, if any, of the services that fall under SPED.

Chris Hill, Bowen Elementary School parent, commented that there is never enough funds for everything and inevitably people will argue over the limited size of the pie, so his suggestion would be to attempt to make the pie bigger by reducing some of the costs. He is working with another parent on behalf of the PTO Council around some measures to make the schools more energy efficient, which will require a long-term capital investment approach. These issues are not only the traditional ones, such as new boilers and windows, but some creative and innovative approaches as well. To a certain extent these approaches were incorporated into the new building at Newton South and hopefully will be in place for Newton North as well. In terms of class size, Newton is fortunate to have 15 elementary schools, but given the choice between that number of buildings or smaller classes he would choose the latter. He suggests that families who do not have siblings in a particular school be assigned to two or three different buildings and balance the load in that manner.

Marc Laredo supports the concept of energy efficiency and they need to find a way to fund this endeavor, which should be a long-term capital planning cost rather than part of the operating budget. This approach will be to spend money now to save later. In terms of Mr. Hill’s suggestion regarding school assignments, it is certainly worth exploring to see if it is feasible and something that parents might desire, although there are issues around that concept that would need to be discussed, such as transportation costs.

Susie Heyman likes the notion of exploring new ideas and she is aware of communities in California that do attempt to balance class size using the concept Mr. Hill talked about. Newton has a long tradition of neighborhood schools, which is a strength of the system, but in difficult times it is worth exploring these type of suggestions.

Jeff Young agreed that it is an “out-of-the box” way of thinking about the problem. He asked if Mr. Hill was considering this in terms of an annual assignment or for the length of the elementary school term.

Chris Hill does not believe they want to be constantly shifting students around at this young age and he would certainly want there to be a sibling clause. He sees this geared more toward new people moving into the system or families who have their first child entering kindergarten. If there were a problem in terms of class size at one of their designated schools, they would be shifted to one of the others within fairly close proximity.

Jeff Young agreed that it is worth investigating and doing some modeling with a couple of schools to see how it might play out.

Bruce Henderson, Zervas Elementary School parent, believes this concept would be more palatable and flexible if it were completely voluntary. This way families can choose between whether they value neighborhood schools more than class size or vice-versa and all will benefit without it being forced.

Geoffrey Epstein, Underwood Elementary School parent, commented on the success of the literacy program and would like to see that simulated for math and science. These are areas where they might want to focus some professional development opportunities for staff and wondered how they see this fitting into the budget.

Jeff Young stated that the literacy initiative grew out of data that had been collected for a number of years around students’ performance in reading and writing. There was a sizeable percentage of students in the third and fourth grade that were not performing in the proficient or advanced categories of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam, as well as on their own local assessments. They do not have the same kind of data in the math and science areas, although they are working on obtaining that and have some information for mathematics, which is indicating that there are issues in this area particularly at the middle school level. Because of budget constraints they have not been able to deploy the same cadre of specialists to the math area as they did with literacy, but they have been able to institute a volunteer program through a grant from the Newton Schools Foundation. Through this program they have a .5 coordinator who has brought approximately 50 volunteers from the community into the system to provide support to students. While this is certainly not the level of attention they would like to give to this area, it is a first step. In terms of assistance for teachers around teaching the subject of math, this is done through the professional development offerings, which incorporate advanced skills in content and pedagogy, as well as providing support through the supervision and evaluation process.

Geoffrey Epstein appreciates this as a start and would like to see something incorporated into the budget that frames this in a long-term plan.

Karen Nacht, Zervas parent, wanted to talk about the budget process itself and ways to make it better. She felt that the participation of children in last year’s deliberations was manipulative and would like to see some guidelines or standards of ethics set. There were issues where teachers and/or programs were being considered for cuts and meetings were monopolized by students who were understandably upset and angry. While she certainly wants children to participate in the governmental process, there needs to be some rules as to what is or is not appropriate. One suggestion would be a separate forum for students that would be better supervised and facilitated.

Dori Zaleznik commented that the Committee often is cutting programs in the abstract without fully understanding the impact at the school level until the public comes forward expressing concerns. They have asked the administration to attempt to give them more information about the impact of cuts so that these issues do not come as a surprise.

Karen Nacht stated that the process last year felt manipulative because certain cuts would be proposed, followed by a lot of public input opposing those cuts, and then restoration of the cuts would occur.

Marc Laredo feels it is important for students to be part of the democratic process particularly at the secondary level. High school representatives sit with the Committee at their meetings and provide valuable input and insight into what is going on in the schools. However, he agrees that they need to be sensitive to the manipulation of younger children. Perhaps there are other methods of hearing their voices without having them stifled. In terms of issues arising around budget cuts, often when cuts have been made in particular areas it is not intended to result in the outcome that transpires. Once the impact is better understood the Committee and Superintendent discuss the issue and may make some revisions to the original decision.

Gail Glick does not want to set too many strict rules around public input, but expressed concern about the redundancy of lobbying that occurs at budget time both in public session as well as in the numerous emails the Committee receives. While they certainly take all of this information into consideration when making their decisions, the fact that they hear repeatedly about one particular program does not necessarily equate a greater weight to that issue.

Al Race, Mason-Rice Elementary School and Brown Middle School parent, admitted that when large numbers of students address an issue in public, it can seem overwhelming. However, it is important to note that the uproar about last year’s cut in drama was solely driven by the children and not the adults and the program was not restored. On another note, as the editor of several national publications for educators, he wanted to make the Committee aware of some articles recently published that might be of help as they move forward into the budget process. One was written by the Director of Library Research Services at Colorado State, which indicates that other than economic status, a well staffed, stocked, and funded library that embraces information technology is the strongest and most consistent factor of a student’s achievement. It rates higher than class size, salaries, and per pupil expenditures. In addition, Partnership for 21^st Century Skills has done work around the skills needed for the workforce of the 21^st century related to technology, critical thinking, and media literacy, and they have a number of things that can help districts in planning and assessing. He will be happy to share this information with anyone who is interested.

Jeff Young asked if he could leave the material so that it can be copied for the Committee.

David Yavin, Underwood parent, thanked the Committee for listening to parents’ concerns and providing this forum. He talked about class size being the priority when difficult decisions need to be made. One of the problems is the lack of specific standards and using goals and numbers that are not concrete, which results in planning problems. While he understands there may be situations and times that they cannot achieve the results they would like in this area, they still should have more clear policies in place that they can address on an annual basis as to whether or not they can reach those targets. Last year the parents’ Class Size Action Committee did a lot of research and proposed the following standards: no more than 22 students in grades k-3 and no more than 24 in grades 4 and 5. They have a spreadsheet that indicates the specific grades where those numbers are not being met. He would be happy to share that information, which can be used as a tool for their work as they consider how various numbers will impact each grade.

Jeff Young asked if this material only addresses elementary schools.

David Yavin replied in the affirmative. It gets more complicated as they move to the secondary level because the notion of one class gets eliminated. Last year there were 27 classrooms that did not meet these standards, which would have required 12 additional teachers, and this year there are 45, which would mean 17 more teachers. Being able to concretely measure these scenarios is what is important for determining how they stand now and what needs to be invested for the future. While people speak about the averages creeping up in small increments, this does not reflect what occurs in a classroom where numbers jump from 17 to 25. He has had personal experience with large classes in which his children did not do well and it was their worst school experience.

Jeff Young wanted to clarify that Mr. Yavin is speaking of goals and not setting policies which would automatically trigger the creation of an additional classroom.

David Yavin confirmed that he is referring to targets vs. specific policies. When the numbers were deleted from the budget guidelines some parents interpreted that as an intentional decision not to set limits.

Jeff Young noted that this perception is indicative of the lack of communication during last year’s budget deliberations and only confirms the need for the type of forum they are involved in tonight.

Reenie Murphy would like to see the Class Size Action Committee incorporate the secondary schools into their data, as they are having issues at the high schools around class size as well and particularly at Newton South.

David Yavin stated that they made some attempts last year to incorporate the secondary level, but he agrees that they need to do more work in this area.

David Miller, Ward Elementary School parent, addressed the issue of challenging students. There are a number of children working well above grade level in the system and he feels there is complacency about doing only what is required for the MCAS and/or the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. They seem to have a fairly good handle on challenge with the literacy initiative, but it is absent in math.

Liz Richardson, Brown and South parent, talked about how teachers approach subjects differently. Sometimes they have several levels in their classrooms with children performing different tasks at different stages. It would be helpful if part of the professional development provided time for staff to brainstorm on more consistency around differentiation and flexibility.

Susie Heyman noted that a number of years ago there was an academic challenge subcommittee and a great deal of professional development around this topic devoted to the elementary level. It was eventually absorbed into the regular curriculum and instruction program and the committee was no longer needed. However, it might be time to revisit this area to see specifically how students are being challenged in the classroom.

Jeff Young added that there was also a full-time academic challenge coordinator on staff at that time, which was one of many administrative positions that was cut from the budget. This discussion clearly shows how difficult a teacher’s job is today with the various needs of students and the high expectations of staff to keep each child challenged. There is also a certain amount of “growing pains” that all systems are experiencing as they try to adapt to standards based curriculum. Teachers have to balance staying within the standards while using their creativity and innovation to differentiate the instruction for each child. Professional development is key to this work. The difficulty they face every year is in trying to balance this need with issues such as class size. They struggle with the choice of adding the extra teacher that will benefit 50 students vs. using those funds toward programs that will benefit the entire system.

David Miller commented that providing teachers the necessary tools they need, such as the literacy program, makes a big difference. It gives them a head start in determining where students stand, so that they can utilize particular strategies that address the needs.

Jeff Young noted that the tools go beyond just professional development and include materials, technology, etc.

Cindy Carter, Brown and Newton North parent, is concerned about math instruction, which is not just a Newton issue but a national concern. Elementary teachers tend to be stronger in language arts and weaker in mathematics. There are a variety of successful models currently available. They should not wait until they have money to do something similar to the literacy program, but explore these other possibilities to improve the program now.

Jeff Young commented that there is nothing locking them into a particular math program or having schools trying different models. This depends on the staff in a building and their particular strengths, interests, and abilities, as well as the mix of students in the classrooms. One thing for certain is that there is no one best system for anything. He agrees that they need to be flexible in their approach.

Cindy Carter added that they cannot expect every teacher to teach every subject equally well and that should be made clear to staff, as everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses.

Sarah Ecker, Cabot Elementary School parent, wonders how the teachers’ concerns and priorities get expressed through the budget process, particularly having to do with professional development.

Dori Zaleznik stated that the voices of the teachers are presented through the principals, as they bring these discussions with staff forward into the process.

Sarah Ecker has felt a sense of caution on the part of teachers about their willingness to share concerns. Perhaps they do so with their union, but it does not occur in public, in which case parents are often dealing with rumors.

Anne Larner admitted that they struggle with the notion of how to get at what teachers feel about any given issue, because there is a reticence to communicate up the chain, which exists in many organizations. They have to rely on the administration to bring those voices forward, as much as possible, and keep an ear out for conversations that filter through other channels.

Marc Laredo commented that the administration might have different views than staff on issues such as professional development, since they are looking at it from a systemwide perspective vs. an individual basis. He would encourage anyone to feel free to speak to individual School Committee members if it is not something people are comfortable addressing publicly.

Gail Glick noted that without a formal process for public communication around their concerns, teachers are naturally going to be reticent about speaking openly. They cannot forget that this is an employment relationship and the issues are very complex. What might be valuable for one teacher may not be the case for another.

Jeff Young stated that teachers in Newton have never been shy to express their opinions to him and it is difficult to characterize the average view because it is such a wide range. The response to a particular workshop can range from being the best experience someone ever had and it will be put it into practice immediately, to it being the worst conference ever attended with nothing was gained. The teachers’ opinions around curriculum development are extremely important in shaping the offerings, but are only part of the mix. The administration has the responsibility of addressing the needs of the entire system. The challenge is finding the way to diagnose the instructional needs and merge that with teachers’ interests and create programs to engage and support them in their work.

Andrea Danzit would like to know how the Committee plans to set priorities and articulate those to the public given the myriad of topics that have been raised this evening.

Anne Larner stated that this is what they will be struggling with over the next couple of School Committee meetings, as they develop the Budget Guidelines.

Cindy Carter commented that it was music that drew her son out of his shell and brought him academic success, so she hopes they will not forget the importance of the arts during their deliberations.

Jeff Young responded that this is what makes this so difficult and why they attempt to balance vs. prioritize. For many students it is athletics and/or arts that keep them connected to the school and help them to succeed.

Liz Richardson asked if there might be a way to share financial discussions along with the various components of the budget as the process evolves rather than waiting until the last minute.

Anne Larner replied that this will be part of their discussions around the Budget Guidelines. Last year they set a target of January for presenting a bottom line and she would like to see them strive for this goal again, with the understanding that there will always be factors out of their control and unpredictable situations with regard to state revenues.

Rob Evans thanked everyone for attending and participating this evening and stated that they will now wrap it up with a summary from the Vice-Chairperson.

Dori Zaleznik appreciates the opportunity to have had this forum, which she feels established a good tone and allowed the Committee to hear some very interesting ideas that can be further explored. She is encouraged to continue these types of discussions so that they do not replicate the tension and problems associated with last year’s budget cycle. Everyone recognizes that they cannot do everything and they may disagree on how to get where they need to go, but these types of conversations help people to better understand the issues and feel that they are being heard. She respects the fact that the public addressed the broader picture tonight rather than advocating for a particular grade, school or program. She reviewed the topics that were addressed this evening and provided information to the audience regarding how to contact the Committee if they did not have a chance to speak or wish to provide additional comments. She concluded by mentioning that the Committee realizes there were some competing school related activities this evening, but the forum is being taped and will be rebroadcast by New TV. Finally, she mentioned that the PTO is sponsoring two public forums on special education – one on 11/17 at Newton North and one on 12/1 at Oak Hill.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.