MINUTES OF REGULAR & BUDGET MEETING MAY 12, 2003
PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner,
Vice-Chairperson Susan Albright, Gail Glick, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo,
Nancy Levine, Leslie Schneider, Dori Zaleznik, Keith Agoada, student
representative, Newton South High School
ABSENT: Mayor David Cohen and student representative,
Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at
PUBLIC HEARING/VOTE ON
SCHOOL CHOICE
Anne Larner
explained that, by law, they are required to hold a public hearing on school
choice. Traditionally, they have never
participated in the program.
There were no members of
the audience who wished to comment on this issue.
Superintendent Jeff Young
stated that
MOTION: It was moved that the
participate in the Massachusetts School Choice
Program for the 2003-2004 academic year.
(Levine - Albright)
7 0 2
Absent for vote: Zaleznik
Absent for
meeting: Mayor Cohen
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no members of
the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES'
DISCUSSION
Keith Agoada
commented on the continual parking problem at
Michael Welch, Principal
of Newton South, admitted that the contractors are parking in these areas. There will be a safety oversight committee
meeting tomorrow morning and he will bring up this issue.
Anne Larner
mentioned that the two issues Keith raised at the last meeting were discussed
in the weekly design meeting the following day (clocks and urinals). She thanked him for bringing these issues to
people's attention, which then triggers action.
A letter will be forthcoming about the issue regarding the urinals.
Keith Agoada
noted that the clocks are now working.
RECOGNITIONS
None.
APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: It was moved to approve the School Committee
regular/budget
meeting minutes of
and executive session minutes of
(Schneider
- Kellogg)
7
- 0 - 2
Absent for vote: Zaleznik
Absent
for meeting: Mayor Cohen
REPORTS
Susan
Albright briefed the Committee on the last two Task Force meetings, where they
reviewed the matrix analyzing the options.
The
Superintendent presented the educational assessment of the
options and the MIT architectural class did a presentation on a campus
school. While the vote was not
unanimous, the majority of the Task Force endorsed the large hybrid and a
report is being written on the reasons for this recommendation.
Anne Larner
noted that, according to the financial presentation by Sandy Pooler, Chief
Budget Officer, the new school option would require a new revenue source, while
the options in the $70-$80 million range could be done with available financial
tools, presuming they will receive the School Building Assistance Program
(SBAP) reimbursement as planned.
SUPERINTENDENT'S PERSONNEL
REPORT
There were no questions on
the report.
FY03 BUDGET UPDATE
Jeff Young reported that
the budget projections remain stable.
SPECIAL EDUCATION UPDATE
Patty Kellogg asked about
the METCO special education (SPED) costs.
Carol Daynard,
Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services, replied that the METCO SPED costs
are in the regular SPED budget. Based on
enrollment of METCO students in SPED, a formula is then applied by the State
for reimbursements. This is the last
year for this funding and they actually received double than anticipated. Therefore, they are using some of that to
offset the overrun in the contract services account.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Jeff Young stated that
tonight they will discuss the new three-year cycle for the School Improvement
Plans, which they believe improves short- and
long-term planning.
The goals and the formatting of the document itself have become more
consistent and are meant to connect to the Systemwide
Goals, which were established in the fall.
They are making an effort to focus the resources on a limited number of
programs and doing them well, vs. an extensive list with mediocre results.
Judith Malone-Neville,
Assistant Superintendent of Schools, stated that this is the first year of the
implementation of the new three-year plan.
The principals hosted a day-long retreat to work exclusively on these plans,
using the Systemwide Goals as a starting point and
then relating them to the individual buildings.
They will then correlate these efforts with the parallel group that has
been working on the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. She thanked
the School Councils who had a tremendous amount of input in this work.
Dori Zaleznik approves of the
similar goals among schools because it provides a view of how the
standards-based curriculum is being implemented, while simultaneously depicting
the uniqueness of each building. She had
thought they were going to address each level in a different year over the
three-year period and asked if this has changed.
Judy Malone-Neville stated
that this is their base document and they will now have to address the cycle
and phasing plan.
Gail Glick asked if there
are intentions to have the principals meet on a regular basis to discuss and
assess this work.
Judy Malone Neville
responded that the elementary and secondary principals meet on a consistent
basis at their individual levels. What
was unique about the workshop was that they met as a whole group and they
anticipate doing this a couple of times a year in order to measure their
progress. One valuable outcome was that
principals learned more about the literacy initiative and the system's focus of
its resources in this area, and how that ties into the end result of students
graduating successfully from the high schools.
She would very much like to see more conversations with a K-12
perspective and they intend to find these opportunities.
Mark Laredo asked how they
envision measuring the outcomes.
Judy Malone Neville
replied that some of the outcomes will be measurable through data collection,
such as improved reading scores. Others
will have projects with a finite end that can be reviewed. The principals will work with the School
Councils to satisfy themselves that the outcomes are
being met, with oversight by Central Staff and interim
reports to the School Committee.
Mark Laredo asked about
the structure of the School Councils.
Judy Malone Neville
replied that the Councils are composed of staff, parents and community members
and are advisory to the principals. The groups meets once a month.
Susan Albright suggested
that an executive summary be attached, which would be useful for comparison
purposes. She then asked about the
emphasis on the physical plant at Angier and wondered why there was little
mention about this aspect from other schools.
Pamela Appleton, Principal
of Angier Elementary School, explained that the School Council and faculty have
been voicing their concerns about this issue since 1994. The need for renovation is clear and both
short- and long-term solutions are being discussed. They have been working with Michael Cronin,
Chief of Operations, who has been very helpful in responding to some of the
immediate needs.
Susan Albright stated that
it would be helpful to have similar information from each school, so that it
can eventually be raised to a level of policy for School Committee. Given the focus on the high school projects,
the other levels have had to sit on the backburner and it is uncertain at this
point when they can begin to address some of these other major needs. However, gathering this information would be
a helpful first step.
Cynthia Marchand, Principal of Franklin Elementary School, talked
about some of the consistent pieces in the report, such as the balanced
literacy program. While some of the
specifics vary among the schools, the major portions are similar. She welcomes this new format because it
becomes more of an action plan with an accountability piece.
Joseph Russo, Principal of
Horace Mann Elementary School, mentioned that the broader goals are now more
consistent systemwide, with specifics targeting the
needs in each building. He cited the
example of technology and its integration into the classroom.
Mark Springer, Principal
of Mason-Rice Elementary School, mentioned that the specific needs are
obviously different in each building.
Some schools have been recently renovated and, therefore, the physical
needs do not play as major a role. Space
issues were a major focus in their discussions, particularly in attempting to
accommodate the sharing of
space for programs such as after-care. Handicap accessibility was another common
theme.
Leslie Schneider asked
about staff involvement in the plans.
Each principal talked
about how staff play an important role in the
development of these plans, both through the School Council vehicle, as well as
participation separately as their own group.
Dori Zaleznik, as a former
school Council member, recalls some of the frustration around the numerous
goals that would be identified and the ability to only accomplish
a few. It appears that the new format
will allow schools to focus on a more limited number but in more depth.
Judy Malone Neville
agreed. The three-year format allows for
a more appropriate timeframe in which to accomplish certain goals. Others will be short-term and some, such as
the literacy initiative, will be ongoing.
Joe Russo admitted that
the group agreed on the "less is more" approach.
Dori Zaleznik wondered why
there was not more feedback from the schools that piloted the literacy
programs, in terms of helping to implement similar programs at other schools.
Judy Malone Neville stated
that the principals of the pilot schools have been actively involved in sharing
feedback on the literacy initiative with their colleagues. In fact, the elementary principal meeting
this month is going to be held at Lincoln-Eliot, so that people can see the
program in action. In addition, the
elementary principals have participated in two workshops on the literacy
initiative with a consultant from
Marvin "Murph" Shapiro, Principal of Oak Hill Middle School,
shared some of the perspective of the principals at that level, who also favor
the new format. He personally feels the
new plan is better because it seems more focused and action-oriented. It was a very good experience to work
together with his colleagues at all levels.
John Jordan, Principal of
Brown Middle School, stated that in light of the "No Child Left
Behind" legislation, the district must develop a consolidated, strategic
plan that teachers will have to use as part of their individual professional
development plan for recertification. He finds that the new format can better help
drive professional development.
Jennifer Huntington,
Principal of Newton North High School, stated that the high school principals
also tried to be concise, but there are different issues between the two
buildings that require distinct approaches.
In the past, there had been a disconnect in
their building between the Systemwide Goals and
School Improvement Plans and the new format helps address this problem. The School Council and the Student Faculty
Administration (SFA) felt this connection was a very important piece and are
pleased to have something they feel is achievable and measurable.
Michael Welch, Principal
of Newton South High School, talked about the upcoming New England Association
of Schools & Colleges, Inc. (NEASC) evaluation of their school; the
construction occurring at their building; and the increase in student
population they expect next year. All of
this will take a great deal of effort and time to oversee, which makes the
three-year plan much more manageable.
The change to submitting the plans in the spring vs. fall is an
enormously positive step, because it gives the School Council time to jell and
be more productive. He recently visited
the
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FY04
SUPPLEMENTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & FY05-FY08 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
Jeff Young announced that
the system learned today from the Mayor that, because of the expenditures the
City had to make this past winter in snow removal, they can expect only $80,000
vs. the $688,000 listed on tonight's material.
Mike Cronin added that, as
a result of the new figures, they will not be able to complete the number of
projects they had originally intended to do in FY04 and will have to fold those
into the following year.
He stated that they had
hoped to continue in their efforts in window replacements in several buildings,
but this will have to now be curtailed.
While they will have to make adjustments with regard to this plan, he
would still like to gear up for completing this project
on an annual basis until the buildings are at a respectable level.
Susan Albright asked about
the generators.
Mike Cronin stated that
the funding will not even cover the cost of one generator and there are a couple that are in need of repair/replacement.
Anne Larner
asked what a reasonable level of funding would be to keep all the facilities in
good condition.
Mike Cronin listed the
systems that need replacement every 20-25 years (masonry, boiler/heating,
windows, plumbing/lavatories, floors, lighting/electrical, roofs) and these do
not include some other large items such as copiers. He would estimate that $600,000 basic minimum
would be required to cover these costs.
Anne Larner
feels that it would be double that amount to do a really decent job.
Mike Cronin stated that
they will have a much clearer picture of this once the web-based program for
capital planning is in place.
Marc Laredo is dismayed by
the news of the limited funding, coupled with the history of being under-funded
in charter maintenance. He is concerned
that they will end up with the need for far costlier repairs.
Susan Albright commented
on the irony that they have been able to develop a funding plan for the high
school, but cannot maintain their buildings.
She believes the school system needs its own capital plan in place that
identifies its needs and then advocates for funding.
Marc Laredo asked about a
contingency plan for any generators that break down.
Mike Cronin responded that
they would have to consider that an emergency and purchase a generator out of
charter maintenance funds.
Jeff Young added that the
other option would be to request a special appropriation from the Board of
Aldermen.
Mike Cronin talked about
his plans for the $80,000 allocation. In
the first category, they will address the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. As previously stated,
there is not sufficient funding for
generators or window replacements. With regard to the electrical upgrades, they
have done some modifications on these throughout the
course of the year.
In the second category, $21,000 came out of telecommunications to
replace the intercom system at Oak Hill, which failed this year. He feels that one of the two areas that
should receive the bulk of the $80,000 is the lavatory upgrades, because they
are in need of dire attention, and energy efficient lighting, which will
produce an %80 reimbursement from NSTAR. They have already been retrofitted and the
plan is in place, so it only makes sense to complete this project. Even if the Committee does not wish to pay
for this out of CIP funding, he would propose it come from charter maintenance
because he feels strongly that the program needs to be put in place.
Anne Larner
asked how the shifting of priorities impacts on FY04.
Mike Cronin stated that it
shifts the work out over a longer period.
He will provide the Committee with a revised proposal for the next
meeting.
Anne Larner
wants to be sure that the longstanding commitment to
Mike
Cronin stated that they have completed a significant amount of work on the labs
in phase 1 and plan to fund phase 2 out of charter maintenance, since the
project is already underway.
Nancy Levine asked if the
lavatory upgrades are restricted to only Brown and
Mike Cronin replied in the
affirmative because of cost limitations and the fact that they are the ones in
most need.
Dori Zaleznik wondered if
they might want to propose another option, which outlines the priorities for
the $80,000 allocation and then adds some additional incremental funding for
other important/emergency projects, but which does not necessarily reach the
full $600,000.
Jeff Young also suggested
outlining the projects in priority order.
Nancy Levine agrees with
the need for a comprehensive plan for all their buildings because they are
addressing needs as they arise rather than in a planned fashion.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FEE
STRUCTURE FOR 2003/2004
Susan Albright provided a
brief history of this topic, which arose during budget deliberations. Since several Committee members expressed
concern about the
transportation fee, it was decided that a subcommittee would work with the school
department to investigate options that would retain the bottom line but broaden
the fee so that it might be more palatable and equitable. One idea that was raised was a fee for
dropping off children in the blue zones at the schools. This would have required approval of the
Board of Aldermen, and there did not appear to be any support for that from
Board members. Another area that arose
for consideration was a fee for drama activities at the secondary level.
Jeff Young asked if the
drama fees were per production or per year and if there was any distinction
between fees paid by an actor vs. a member of the stage crew.
Susan Albright replied
that the cost would be a per year fee and the same for
anyone involved in a production.
Anne Larner
asked about staff feedback on this issue.
Sandra Guryan,
Assistant Superintendent for Business, Finance & Planning, stated that she
heard general concerns that the imposition of a fee would put a damper on the
programs, many which rely heavily on ticket receipts to cover expenses, as well
as parental volunteering of time and resources.
Dori Zaleznik stated that the
Committee had hoped to be able to levy some type of general activity fee, in
order to spread out the burden systemwide. However,
Jeff Young asked if they
had considered a "super" family cap.
Susan Albright noted that
it is definitely worth considering. It
is important to note that they are not passing along the entire cost of
transportation to families, as the school system has a $1.4
million line item for this service.
Jeff Young noted that this
means the system pays approximately 2/3 the cost of transportation, while the
parents cover 1/3.
Dori Zaleznik stated that
whatever decision is ultimately made, she would like to reconsider the entire
fee structure midway through next year, to
review and assess the situation. She hopes they can also reconsider a
discussion with the Board of Aldermen re: the blue zones.
Jeff Young mentioned the
need to include waivers in the program.
Susan Albright commented
on the need to increase bus ridership for a variety
of reasons, particularly safety issues, and this might be something in which
the PTO Council could be of some assistance.
Nancy Levine has a number
of concerns about the impact of a fee on the drama program. First, there is an equity issue involved in
that the schools have very different theater programs; some running more
productions than others. Secondly, many
parents already invest a great deal of time and money into the program, which
would be undermined if a fee were instituted.
Finally, she wonders if this will target and discourage freshmen from
participating, since this is when students try various activities to decide
which they would like to pursue. Rather
than a broader, more equitable fee, it appears to just target another small group.
It does not seem worthwhile to impose a $100 fee for a $30 savings.
Patty Kellogg believes
that the theater program is the only other area that has as intensive a use as
that of athletics. She likes the idea of
offsetting the bus fee somewhat, but shares concerns about equity between the
schools. However, this might be
something that they could address in advance with a pro-rated fee.
Anne Larner
asked for more detailed information about the revenues and expenses of the
theater budgets including, if possible, parental contributions.
Jeff Young added that the
more fees that are imposed, the greater the burden in terms of collections and
administering the program.
Dori Zaleznik asked if they
could attempt to determine the average percentage of families that make
contributions.
Susan Albright asked if
they could also think about what a family receives for the fee, i.e., if there
might be any type of guaranty of participation and/or if the fee only needs to
be paid if a student is selected to participate.
Nancy Levine expressed
some discomfort with asking students who spend countless hours on set design
and crew to then pay a fee for this service they provide to the
production.
Leslie Schneider asked
about the cost to administer a drama fee.
Sandy Guryan
replied that the secretaries at the schools administer the athletic fee,
because the program has been in place for some time and a routine has
developed. The transportation fee would
be centrally administered, so as not to impose another burden on the
schools. There is a staff person in the
budget to administer this program. The
drama fee is more complex and they would need further discussion regarding how
to administer this fee.
Dori Zaleznik commented on
the existing inequities in the athletic fees, in which some students participate
far more than others, so this is not a new concept.
Gail Glick asked if there
were other programs that were reviewed but discarded as options.
Dori Zaleznik stated that the
only other option that was a possibility was extra-curricular shop programs,
but it appeared that the club structure would not allow them to pursue that
avenue.
Gail Glick inquired about
areas such as journalism, newsletters, and yearbooks.
Dori Zaleznik stated that it
would not have generated sufficient revenues.
Nancy Levine commented
that every community in the state is investigating these same issues. Some have considered extra-curricular music
activities. There are numerous
activities that are not part of the educational program or accrue credit.
Anne Larner
stated that they have to look at the actual cost of the program. In some cases a minor stipend is paid to an
advisor. If the activity only involves a
small number of students and the advisor fee is included, it is not practical
to pursue because the amount of the price that could be charged would be so
low. She also noted that some systems
charge
different athletic fees per sport, in an attempt to make it
more equitable, which no doubt makes the administration of the fees quite
burdensome.
Marc Laredo remains
opposed to a transportation fee, although he realizes the system is desperate
for revenues. He reiterated his concerns
about the temptation of yearly increases.
He is also uncomfortable with the athletic fee, despite the fact that it
has been in place for some time.
ACTION ITEMS
VOTE TO REQUEST
AUTHORIZATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION AND DRAMA FEE REVOLVING
ACCOUNTS
Jeff Young stated that
these votes would put in place the mechanism to collect the fees.
Sandy Guryan
added that these items can wait until the next meeting, if the Committee so
desires, but not longer than that because they need sufficient time for passing
them through the appropriate process and in gearing up for the administration
piece.
MOTION: It was
moved to request that the Mayor and
Board of Aldermen establish a
revolving account
for the
purpose of collecting school transportation
fees in
accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws chapter 44, Section 53E 1/2,
to be effective
from the
sale of bus passes for school transportation
in
for
contracted bus services. The FY04
expenditure
limit
for transportation expense is not to exceed
$650,000.
(Albright
- Levine)
7
- 1 - 1
Opposed:
Absent: Mayor Cohen
The Committee decided to
wait on the establishment of a drama fee revolving account, since they have not
yet voted on the establishment of this fee.
VOTE ON FOOD SERVICES
PROGRAM
Marc Laredo asked if they
will have the ability to modify prices as they review the program.
Mike Cronin stated that
they will be able to track the program through the monthly Support Services
Status Report.
Dori Zaleznik remains
concerned about a negative bottom line in the recommended option. However, she is not comfortable going beyond
a $3.00 fee. Initially she had thought
the better option would be to administer the program in-house, but having
talked with people about the history of that method, she is convinced that this
would not be a good idea.
Anne Larner
cautioned people about taking the bottom line too literally because there are a
lot of assumptions being made and this is new territory. She strongly supports outside management
because of the expertise and resources they can bring to the program.
Nancy Levine asked if they
could include in the report monthly trends from previous years, for comparison
purposes.
MOTION: It was
moved to approve Option #3 for the
food
services program (
Attachment
H); raises lunch price to $3.00 and includes an outside contractor for one
year.
(Levine
- Schneider)
8
- 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no members of
the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: At
to convene in executive session, for the purpose
of discussing issues related to collective
bargaining. If passed, the Committee will
not
reconvene in open session.
(Glick - Zaleznik)
8 - 1
Absent:
Mayor Cohen
ROLL CALL VOTE BY WARD:
Ward I, yes (Glick); Ward II, "yes" (Albright); Ward III,
"yes" (Larner); Ward IV, "yes"
(Levine); Ward V, "yes" (Kellogg); Ward VI, "yes' (Schneider);
Ward VII, "yes" (