NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING – OCTOBER 15, 2002
EDUCATION CENTER, FRAZIER ROOM, 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairperson
Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Susan Albright, Gail Glick, Patricia Kellogg,
Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Leslie Schneider, Dori Zaleznik, Mayor David Cohen,
Lindsay Dahlben, student representative - Newton North High School, Keith
Agoada, student representative – Newton South High School
CALL
TO ORDER
Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:35
p.m.
Mayor
David Cohen announced that there had been significant developments in the last
few weeks re: the high school renovation project. Due to health and safety issues, the consultant has recommended
that Newton North High School be vacated during construction. This is a departure from the original
plan. The consultant will explain the detailed
analysis of the cost of the project and has determined that it is higher than
originally estimated. This is due to
increased costs in the heating/ ventilation systems and in the contingency,
which was originally set at 5%, but a 10% figure is more realistic. The City and school staff will have numerous
meetings with various groups, including the public, around the details. While they do not yet know the specifics
around how they will deal with these changes, they are united in making
decisions that will provide students an excellent high school experience. Fortunately, they are two years away from
commencing construction, so there is sufficient time to plan.
Chairperson
Anne Larner added that these are significant and unexpected revelations. However, she is confident that the leadership
of the City and schools have the knowledge and talent to meet this challenge
and succeed in the goal of doing the best for students.
Superintendent
Jeffrey Young stated that the quality of education at Newton North High School
following the project is going to remain excellent. The issue that faces them at this time is how to preserve this
excellence during the phasing aspect.
The City and school staff are committed to working toward this goal.
There were no members of the public who wished to
address the Committee at this time.
Lindsay Dahlben suggested the formation of a committee that will work on the renovations at Newton North High School, and that students be included on the panel.
Anne
Larner explained that various people at the school have had input on the
preliminary design work, including students, and they will continue to look for
opportunities to involve students in the discussions as the timeline gets
closer.
Jeff
Young added that they have tried to make sure that all users of the building
have had a chance to provide input. He
then mentioned a report completed by students at Newton South High School
around this subject. He will make sure
that Lindsay receives a copy.
The following recognitions were acknowledged:
Hirut Fassil, Newton North High School student, who was chosen
as one of 1,500 outstanding Black American semifinalists in the
2003 Achievement Program.
The following students received Letters of Commendation from
The National Merit Scholarship Program:
Newton North
Jonah Abrams Jillian Antonellis Sarah Ballou
Adam Baratz Malka Benjamin Andrew Bialecki
Jeffrey Boucher Michelle Cassorla Sarah Chervinsky
Monica Chu David Cohn Matthew Doeringer
Jennifer Dwork Samuel Ellison Hirut Fassil
Eve Fine Matthew Gardner Rachel Gelfand
Alexandra Goldman Nathan Guttman Anne Hall
Benjamin Hiller Douglas Horne Joseph Katz
Matthew Kondub Rutyh Kuhlman Daniel Landau-Taylor
David Lewis Nan Li Jonathan Lison
Adam Machson-Carter Joely Merriman Rebecca Miles
Deborah Newburg Kendell Newman Alison Nicols
Ellen Nicholson Gregory Peterfreund Julie Planine-Troiani
Timothy Richardson Elana Rome Kimberly Rosen
Amelia Runyan Dana Schlegel Margaret Schreiber
Elizabeth Schuller Lickkong Tam Amanda Wallas
Arielle Weisman Charles West
Newton South
Ray Bai Jonathan Barron Madeleine Baverstam
Eliza Berman Sarah Bernstein Erica Birnbaum
Matthew Borg Itay Budin Margaret Burns
Margo Ibril Alexandra Epstein Joel Esher
Jeremy Gillick Solomon Israel BenjaminKann
Alyssa Kaplan Erica Kerman Karna Krishna
Casey Lamb Richard Levinson Jacqueline Look
Anna Magazinnik Joshua Martin Leigh Norris
Rachel Patterson Timothy Portnoy Gregory Rabin
Sonia Redko Stephen Rodi Evan Sprecher
Weiyi Tan David Tannenwald Monica Ware
Simon Waxman Fan Yang
APPROVAL
OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: It was moved to approve the School Committee
meeting minutes of 9/9 and 9/23/02.
unanimous
REPORTS
SUPERINTENDENT’S PERSONNEL
REPORT
There were no questions on the report.
STAFFING
RECONCILIATION REPORT
Jeff Young noted that this report shows that they are on target in terms of staying within the hiring budget. The four teaching positions that were not part of last year’s budget are a result of increased enrollments over the summer. Two of the four positions have been funded through a grant and two were funded with turnover savings.
FY03 BUDGET UPDATE
Jeff Young announced the projection of a $63,000
surplus, although it is very early in the year and this will fluctuate with
time. This report includes the School
Committee’s voted transfer of $717,000 in technology funds from the operating budget,
which resulted from a shortfall and the need to support the Newton South High
School technology.
Susan Albright asked about the utility accounts.
Sandra Guryan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business, Finance & Planning, stated that the unpredictability of the
utility credit reimbursements from the electric company last year made it difficult
to project the bottom line, which was exceeded. She will watch this area carefully to be sure they are not at
risk again.
Jeff Young noted that there are 6.2 positions
remaining open in this area and the details are included in tonight’s material.
Dori Zaleznik asked about the tuition payment
process.
Carol Daynard, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil
Services, explained that when a contract is signed, the money is
encumbered. Monthly payments are made
and if students change placement or graduate, the changes are reflected on the updates.
Jeffrey Young indicated that the number of students
leaving the school system has declined slightly this year. Research has indicated that the primary
reason for families
selecting private schools has to do with class
size. While Newton has done a good job
in retaining smaller class sizes at the elementary level over the past few
years, there are always private placements with lower numbers and some people
will choose those options.
Marc Laredo wondered if they track students who
never enter the public schools and those who enter from private schools.
Sandy Guryan replied that they track students who
never enter the system in the Private School Report, which will be provided in
February. The percentage remains fairly
stable, as in most communities.
December’s Enrollment Forecast will indicate students who enter from
private schools.
Marc Laredo stated that as much information as
possible regarding what attracts people to the system and what drives them away
is always helpful.
Anne Larner thanked the staff involved in preparing
these monthly and annual reports, which are very helpful and important to the
Committee in their work. Since they
have been tracking this information, it has enabled the Committee to do a
better job of overseeing the system and getting an idea of trends over a period
of time.
DISCUSSION
ITEMS
CONTINUED
DISCUSSION RE: HIGH STAKES TESTING
Anne Larner explained that tonight continues their
discussion re: high stakes testing that began at the last meeting. This will be a particularly important
subject this year, given that the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
(MCAS) exam becomes a graduation requirement.
These conversations are to help the Committee better understand the
issues and complexities involved in this subject and to increase
awareness. A series of questions raised
by the Committee has produced a very helpful bibliography and reams of material
from staff that they will be reviewing.
She suggested they work through each section and raise any questions
that members may have with regard to a particular item. The Committee began with the issue of test
validity, controls, scoring, and other State assessments.
Dori Zaleznik asked about the function of the
common questions, which change each year, and how they are used for
validating.
Carol Palmer, Research Assistant, explained that
common questions compose 80% of a child’s test and matrix questions 20%. Within the matrix questions are equating
questions that are used annually, which help establish threshold scores and
determine whether the test remains the same each year or is more or less
difficult. One child’s 20% of matrix
questions is not necessarily the same as another’s.
Dori Zaleznik asked if the retest involved solely
common questions.
Carol Palmer stated that the focus retest in
February has completely different questions, but the spring retest is the same,
minus the matrix questions.
Gail Glick wondered if there is a lag time during the
three-year period, when Newton is aligning its curriculum, which may create a
deficit in learning for students.
Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction, responded that the English/language arts Frameworks were developed approximately six years ago, followed shortly by mathematics, by teachers who were already teaching solid content in the subject areas. The three-five year curriculum revision cycle used in Newton does not start from scratch, but rather reviews what is being taught to ascertain that it aligns with the Frameworks. Therefore, it is a revision vs. developmental process. However, this is not necessarily true with the social studies curriculum, where they had to make decisions on curriculum without a Framework in place. As the Frameworks shifted several times in this area, they have had to develop what they believed was solid curriculum and provide good teaching and learning experiences in the classroom, while attempting to guess at what ultimately will be in the Frameworks. Any gaps that may become apparent have more to do with the pedagogy that needs to be in place for teachers to be able to differentiate instruction for all students. They may be teaching all the right content, but still not reaching all students. This is why professional
development is so important.
The
Committee segued into the next area of discussion, which has to do with
alignment.
Nancy
Levine asked if all students have been learning the curriculum as it has been
aligned with the Frameworks.
Carolyn
Wyatt stated that all of the subjects are aligned with the Frameworks except
for social studies, which the State continues to revise. The question regarding whether a student has
mastered the content, or whether teachers have gained full facility with
teaching the method, is where the dissonance might arise.
Nancy
Levine noted that there are still students for whom the high stakes nature of
the test will apply that have not had a full school career with aligned
curriculum.
Carolyn
Wyatt agreed that the class of 2003 has not totally experienced the aligned
curriculum. However, the State began
testing in 1998, with the understanding that this would be the first class for
whom the high stakes nature would apply and that they would help systems reach
success. Student scores in Newton have
continued to improve in most subjects and they have been identifying those at
risk who need further support.
Susan
Albright expressed concern for communities who have not been doing the work
that has been occurring in Newton and whose curriculum is not in alignment with
the Frameworks. She wondered if it is
fair to test seniors, who for the first eight years of their education were not
necessarily following the curriculum as outlined by the standards.
Carolyn
Wyatt stated that this is a difficult question to answer. The content in the Frameworks is something
that they would expect every child to know.
The fairness issue has to do with whether the adults and the systems are
doing their jobs.
Susan
Albright wondered how they would be able to assess a system without testing.
Jeff
Young replied that both the State Department of Education (DOE) and federal government are looking for more
accountability in schools and seem to be willing to help systems develop other
measures. Hopefully they can talk about
this at another time.
Anne
Larner mentioned that ironically some of the backup material she has read
indicates that the mathematics portion of the exam may, in fact, not be rigorous
enough and may need improvement.
Dori
Zaleznik questioned whether other communities are as prepared as Newton. There are systems with less resources and
support for students who have not reached the level of alignment that they have
in Newton and she is troubled by that inequity. This appears to be punishing students for the failures of system.
Carolyn
Wyatt commented that she is troubled when she goes into a store and cashiers
cannot add without the help of a cash register, or when the ability to read a
newspaper is a higher level skill than the average literacy skills of many
children upon graduation. She believes
that raising the bar and expecting all students to reach a certain level of
competency is the only solution.
Mayor
Cohen does not disagree that standards and the need to increase literacy are
necessary. However, the question is
whether MCAS is the only tool to assess that competency.
Carolyn
Wyatt stated that MCAS is the current assessment tool and the standards are fairly
consistent with what students should know upon graduation. She agrees that MCAS should not necessarily
be the only criteria to assess whether a student is prepared to properly enter
the workforce. As a school system, they
need to put in place some local assessments to join with MCAS in determining
students’ abilities.
Anne
Larner segued into the next portion of the discussion, which has to do with
alternatives. An appeals process has
been put in place by the State and she asked if that could be addressed.
Carolyn
Wyatt replied that they have just begun to look at students who might be
eligible for appeals, which apparently takes about 12 hours per student to
prepare. It is her understanding that
the State will deal with each case on an individual basis, as this is the first
class for which the high-stakes nature is in place, and that there may be some
leniency.
Nancy
Levine wondered about students who might fail multiple times in taking MCAS
before there is an alternative and how that might impact on dropout rates.
Dori
Zaleznik asked if they have a sense of the number of students who did not
graduate in past years after completing their senior year.
Carolyn
Wyatt does not have these statistics on hand and would have to do some
research. Fortunately, one thing that
MCAS has forced on systems is to document attendance and graduation
requirements.
Roberta
Dollase, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, stated that from her
years of experience as the Principal of Newton South High School, there were
always a few students who did not get a diploma for failing to have sufficient
credits
or not meeting graduation requirement, but who often would complete their
school work after graduation.
Patty
Kellogg suggested guiding students who consistently fail MCAS toward obtaining a
general equivalency diploma (GED) rather than having them drop out of
school.
Carolyn
Wyatt understands that the DOE is working on a program that might award
certificates to these students that would then steer them to a GED, the armed
services, or a community college.
However, they would still have to meet certain criteria and would have
to have tutorial training in order to pass the GED. The State will be stiffening the requirements for the GED, so
that it will be comparable to the competency requirement of any graduate of a
Massachusetts high school.
Anne
Larner thanked Carolyn and her staff for this helpful discussion, which will
continue in the future.
DISCUSSION RE: MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
COMMITTEES/ MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS (MASC/MASS)
CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Anne
Larner noted that there are three resolutions that will be voted upon at the
upcoming MASC/MASS conference, for which Nancy Levine, their delegate, will
need some direction from the Committee.
The Committee will not vote on this tonight, but will begin conversation
around the issues. She mentioned that
it might be beneficial to give Nancy some flexibility around some of the topics
and provide guidance rather than strict directives, because often there are a
number of changes and amendments that come to the floor at the meeting, which
can alter the resolutions.
Resolution
#1 – Education Funding Fairness Study
The
Committee agreed that they should support this resolution, which is a study
report that will offer an advisory opinion on potential inequities in the
distribution of State education aid.
Resolution
#2 – MCAS as a Requirement for Graduation
Dori Zaleznik remains convinced that it is
premature to make MCAS a graduation requirement for the class of 2003 because
there are too many students at risk Statewide. Therefore, she would be in favor of
supporting Brookline’s resolution.
Marc Laredo shares Dori’s views on this
subject. He does not believe voting in
favor of this resolution is a vote against standards. School systems need to be held accountable for the success of
students, but he is concerned about a single test being the sole criteria
for determining that success. He too supports Brookline’s resolution, even
if he may not agree with the exact wording.
Gail Glick continues to support this
resolution. She believes in multiple
measures of assessing competency, of which MCAS could be one.
Mayor Cohen stated that voting for this resolution
is not an indication of wanting to do away with MCAS, rather that it not be the
sole measure of determining if a student should graduate. It was the understanding of the legislature
that passed this law that it would be used as one of a variety of assessment
tools. He does not read the resolution
as indicating that school committee should break any laws, rather that if a
change needs to be made to assert local rights, they should advocate for that position.
Patty Kellogg agrees with the need for multiple
assessments. However, if the high
stakes nature of MCAS is eliminated there would be some communities that may
not have the support or initiative to provide the necessary remediation for
children at risk. Perhaps a better
solution would be to allow for lowering of the bar for the cohort of students
who have not had a full schooling career under the Frameworks and gradually
raise it each year.
Susan Albright agreed that there is some unfairness
with making this a requirement for the class of 2003, who were only in the 8th
grade when the process began and did not have a curriculum that was aligned
throughout their entire school career.
She is also concerned about the ninth-grade dropout rates, which appear
to have increased from 6% to 12%. On
the other hand, without some kind of high stakes nature to an exam it is
questionable that systems can be held accountable. This particular resolution does not address the complex issues
involved.
Jeff Young commented that the main impact MCAS has
had on Newton is in forcing them to identify students at risk and create
programs to assure their success. These
are very positive things that may not have occurred without this impetus. There will be students who will struggle to
pass MCAS and who may have to take the exam successive times. However, the system is committed to bringing
them to the level necessary for success.
Anne Larner has been a consistent supporter of MCAS
as a graduation requirement, but does share concerns about communities in
different circumstances than Newton.
Whether it be for reasons of lack of resources or just not taking the
issue seriously, there are large percentages of students who are at risk for
not graduating, so she has some concerns about the timing of the high stakes
nature of the exam. However, the
resolution seems to be very black or white without addressing the complexities
involved. There is a lot to be said for
the State enforcing a basic minimum standard so that children in all
communities have equal opportunities.
Newton has the capacity to
develop good graduation requirements, but in
reality has yet to present this criteria given the issues that have forced them
off track. Hopefully they will have
these in place this year. In
conclusion, even with the concerns she has outlined, she still cannot support
Brookline’s resolution.
Jeff Young added that calling MCAS the sole criteria
for graduation is a misnomer because even with passing the exam, students who do
not have enough credits will not graduate.
Nancy Levine reiterated that the intent of the
original reform was to have multiple assessment tools, which agreeably the
resolution does not address. However,
the resolution does provide an opportunity to slow things down and force the
issues to be discussed. She also does
not want to forego Newton’s rights in terms of local control.
Leslie Schneider supports the resolution because
she feels it is important to have a broad and full discussion of the
issues. She feels that MCAS is a work
in progress and that they are not yet ready for the high stakes nature of the
exam. She shares concern about school
systems’ responsibilities for making sure students are successful. They would be punishing their students if
they did not develop some measure of accountability.
Marc Laredo reiterated that the strengths of MCAS
are in its ability to prod school systems into making sure the curriculum is
aligned with the Frameworks; assessing the curriculum and students’ abilities
to meet the standards; and identifying those at risk. However, it is the students who will be punished for the failure
to meet this criteria rather than teachers or systems and that is what is so troubling. Newton is clearly doing an excellent job,
but that is not the case for all other communities. He envisions incredible dropout rates in other cities and town,
which becomes a huge societal problem.
Jeff Young noted that students who receive diplomas
that have no meaning are not prepared to enter the workforce in a meaningful
way.
Marc Laredo respectfully disagreed. While they may not be armed with the
knowledge or information that the system would like for them to have had, they
at least have a piece of paper that allows them some opportunities.
Jeff Young reminded people that education reform
grew out of a need realized in the business community, where employees who had
recently graduated were not prepared
in terms of basic skills. This has to be a collaborative effort between the system, staff,
and students and it must be taken seriously by all.
Dori Zaleznik mentioned that most communities did
not even get 50% of their students who failed the test through any remediation
program they had in place, which fortunately was not the case in Newton. This indicates that these remediation
programs are inadequate, which supports the notion that students will suffer
for the faults of a
system.
MCAS is not ready as a graduation requirement because the structures of
support have not been put into place universally to make it fair Statewide.
Jeff Young stated that they are doing a disservice
to children in systems that are not meeting the challenge and not providing
good remediation programs. He is
pleased with how well Newton is doing and hopes other systems will take similar
initiatives and rise to the occasion.
Susan Albright asked if they could amend the
resolution for the conference.
Anne Larner stated that they cannot change the
wording of Brookline’s resolution, but they can provide some guidance to their
delegate to put forward amendments at the convention, if the opportunity arises. She would not recommend doing that at this
time because debate and actions change frequently at the convention and it
could be a moot point to go in with something prepared.
Resolution #3 – Bilingual Education in
Massachusetts
Anne Larner commented that given the Committee’s
discussion at their last meeting, it appears that there is consensus to oppose
ballot Question #2 .
Mayor Cohen added that it might be beneficial for
the delegate to raise the fact that Question #2 will cost local school systems
millions of dollars and has not proven to be effective in other areas where it
has been tried.
Marc Laredo asked about the citywide professional
development day.
Jeff Young explained that this year is the first
year that they will implement this exciting program for faculty, which will
bring in a number of outstanding speakers in various aspects of educational
policy. They will shortly have the
agenda for this year’s program in place and will be certain the Committee receives
a copy. Speakers include Barney Frank,
Jeff Howard, Harold Hodgkinson, Janice Jackson, Chris Dede, Thomas Hehir, Jay
Heubert, Huajing Maske, and Bill Pollack.
Dori Zaleznik, Chairperson of the Budget Guidelines
Subcommittee, which consists of herself, Patty and Susan, developed the
document after discussions with the Superintendent around the frameworks for
the guidelines. The Superintendent took
their draft to the Administrative Council and received additional input. The document before the Committee this
evening reflects these modifications.
The goal is to sustain the programs that have been put in place even if
they are phased in over a several year timeframe, being cognizant of the
economic times and the recent passage of the
Override.
The goal is to continue with their plans without initiating programs
that cannot be fully funded and completed.
The general guidelines at the beginning of the
document address and continue their long-standing commitment
to programs such as the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunities
(METCO), inclusion, and Special Education (SPED). However, they want to also be sure they are not over-spending in
areas and to preserve flexibility in terms of contract negotiations and meeting
SPED requirements. Following this is
the section that outlines the six areas from the white papers that were used to develop the budget last year and
which they will continue to focus on in this budget: class size, technology, support staff, instructional materials,
building maintenance, and program. She
briefly described their direction in each of these areas.
Susan Albright would like to explore ways to
increase guidance counselor ratios or provide opportunities for more
involvement between counselors and students that would not cost the system
additional money.
Gail Glick commented on a part of the technology section
having to do with computers on mobile carts.
An assessment of the success of this initiative might result in an
alternative plan than was originally proposed.
Anne Larner believes that the economy at the State
level has changed for the worse and that they face lower State aid funding, as
well as the loss of grant money. The
restraints they will be facing appear to be tighter than they originally
thought at the beginning of the year.
They will have to strengthen their efforts to economize and she is not
certain they will be able to do all of what is outlined in the Guidelines. She also talked about the fact that building
maintenance has always been the place that has absorbed the most cuts in
difficult times and she would hope that this time the burden can be more
equally shared among a variety of areas.
Jeff Young cautioned people about raising false
expectations. It is clear that
priorities will be necessary and sustaining certain programs will mean other
areas will be impacted.
Marc Laredo stated that the sentence requesting the
Superintendent to examine every phase of operations in order to attempt to find
economies without sacrificing excellent education is paramount and is where
they have to first focus. He is
concerned about technology and building maintenance, where they will pay the
price in the future if not addressed now.
Leslie Schneider wondered if they should be
prioritizing the guidelines.
Anne Larner explained that the Superintendent has
been investigating economies and efficiencies in the budget for several months
and the Committee will need some guidance from him on his findings. At the beginning of the year, it looked like
the school budget might potentially be allocated approximately $6,000,000. However, more recent conversations indicate
that it could drop as low as $4,000,000.
This is going to be a difficult year.
Jeff Young suggested the Committee not prioritize
the Guidelines at this point, but wait until they have a clearer picture of the
allocation and can further explore the
tradeoffs.
Their dialogue will be continuing throughout the next several
months.
The Committee thanked the members of the Subcommittee
for their work on this document. It
will be brought back at the next meeting for a final vote.
None.
None.
There were no members of the public who wished to
address the committee at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.