NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING – OCTOBER 27, 2003

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 Cohen, Annie Levine, student representative - Newton North High School

ABSENT: student representative - Newton South High School

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. She outlined how the Committee would be addressing the discussion of the Newton North High School project and announced that there would be no deliberation on the issue of moving the stadium to Albemarle Field, which has recently been raised. They are not the sole decision-makers with regard to use of city fields for school athletics. If such a proposal should arise, they will work with all appropriate boards and commissions to develop a process that allows for full hearings and public input. The Committee and Mayor are in agreement that whether or not the field is moved is a separate issue from what is the best use of the site at Newton North for a new or reconfigured building. Tonight they will be addressing two new plans, neither of which moves the field offsite, although both shift the current location of the field and track within the grounds. Their focus over the next few months is going to be solely on the options. Given the number of issues that need to be addressed around this topic this evening, the following agenda items will be postponed: Report on Summer Curriculum Workshops, Discussion of Equity Report, Vote to Ratify Superintendent's Contract, Continued Discussion/Vote on 2004-2005 School Calendar, Discussion/Vote re: MASC/MASS Conference Resolutions.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jane Frantz, parent representative on the Newton North High School Council, is concerned that there is an over-emphasis in all the options on Main St. as a physical space vs. a place of community. If it is placed in a section of a new building that is not a natural gathering area where students cross paths throughout the day, it will become marginalized. If the constraints of the site do not allow for a gathering space at the center of the building, one alternative might be a cafeteria with an atrium for seating and a coffee bar, as was part of the original plan. This would serve the students who like crowds and hustle/bustle, as well as those who prefer quieter areas. The plans should reflect this need for connections throughout the entire building.

Mary Claflin, Newtonville, was going to address the issue of Albermarle Field. However, since the Committee will not be discussing this tonight, she will refrain from speaking at this point.

Judi Notartomaso, Newtonville, likewise passed on speaking on the Albermarle Field issue at this time.

Curtis Betts, Newtonville, spoke on behalf of the Friends of Albermarle -- a group of residents who organized quickly in response to what appeared to be rapid developments re: moving the stadium. He asked members of their group in the audience to stand. Their concerns have to do with traffic, parking, impact on current users of the fields, environmental issues, and process. They question the need for two stadiums in the community and raised the possibility of consolidating them into one.

Brenda Keegan, English Dept. Head at Newton North, emphasized the need for the educational program to drive the architectural decisions for the high school project. She urged them to consider the importance of smaller learning spaces, which are not abundantly apparent in any of the designs. Without these spaces, they cannot continue the individualized program that currently is in place. Special education programs, individual writing conferences, and private areas for conversations are just some of the examples of the need for these small spaces.

Deborah Holman, history teacher at Newton North, echoed Ms. Keegan's comments about the importance of private space for conferencing. She also talked about the library as an integral part and extension of the classroom, which must be located in the heart of the building. Leaving it on the old Main St. would relegate it to a back alley. In addition to its location, adequate space is also important in terms of how many classes can be accommodated in a particular block. At one point, three classes could fit into the library at one time, but this was dropped to two when space was needed for special education programs. Since 1996, they have lost 10 of the 13 small surrounding areas to the special education program. In the new plan, they would like to reclaim some of this square footage.

Michelle Curran, Newtonville, commented that any move of the football field to Albermarle would negatively impact the culture of their neighborhood, which is a small-knit community. She is concerned about the increased traffic and safety issues.

Miles Fidelman, Newtonville, thanked the Committee for their decision not to take up the issue of Albermarle at this point. If they had addressed this immediately when it was raised, there would not be a room full of angry and concerned citizens this evening. He urged them to be more careful about the process in the future.

Margaret Doris, Nonantum, reiterated the previous speaker's comments about the need to identify a process for proceeding with any consideration of moving the stadium to Albermarle and to keep communication clear and open.

Mary Fitzgerald, 315 Albermarle Rd., is concerned that moving the stadium off site would have a negative impact on the program and sense of community in the school. She urged the Committee to get input about this from the athletic director and coaches.

Mike Fieleke, teacher at Newton North, talked about the cubicles that teachers utilize at Newton North. While they are small, they serve their purpose well. These spaces allow them to have private discussions with students, correct papers, and prepare lesson plans. He cannot imagine being able to do this in a more public configuration.

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES' DISCUSSION

Annie Levine stressed the importance of Main St. as a central gathering place for students which fosters a sense of community. Many people do not feel this is possible with a vertical space and she agrees. The need for small meeting spaces is also important and she would suggest a combination of commons rooms, smaller areas, and cubicles. She also agrees with Mr. Fieleke's comments about the importance of teacher workspace, although she would encourage that the areas be slightly larger than their current square footage.

RECOGNITIONS

The following recognitions were acknowledged:

Bigelow Middle School, for being selected as a 2003 Vanguard

Model for producing superior achievement results in mathematics,

as well as a Massachusetts Department of Education Exemplary

School, for continued above average performance in all areas of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam.

The following students who were awarded Letters of Commendation

from the National Merit Scholarship Corporation:

Newton North High School

Deborah Aronin Joseph Backer Andrew Barza

Rosina Belcourt Gabrielle Bernstein Rebecca Berwick

Jonathan Bress Samuel Broder-Fingert Nicolas Clote

Ilit Cohen Robert Cooper George Dietz

Lauren Dinger Sarah Filman Courtney Frantz

Zachary Frosch Elena Gonzalez Alex Gurfinkel

Caleb Howcroft Maida Ives Alexander Jacobson

Nathan Kaufman Ailish Kress Rebecca Kunzendorf Michael Leeson Alexander Levine Kanwei Li

Nong Li Christina Lu Alain Manigat

Leonid Margul Brittany Morse Graham Neray

Stephanie O'Brien Jennifer Ostrom Nathaniel Pangburgn

Patrick Pierce Marsha Rifkin Ari Rodenstein

David Romm Kaleigh Ross Martin Rotemberg

Andrew Schrage Jason Shen Dana Silbertsein

Kevin So Julia Thomas Noah Van Niel

Alison Wolfe Joanna Wright Rachael Ziering

Carmen Zilles Jennifer Zuar

Newton South High School

Sarah Allar Danielle Berger Bryan Bloom

Svetlana Borochin Lindsay Broughel Daniel Broyles

Anna Cooley Edward Crecelius Amanda Dropkin

Anna Farber Nathan Farber Robert Gordon

Adam Greenstein Joshua Hirshfeld Gareth Hughes

Katherine- arrell Laura Kalin George Katsevman

Eleonora Khait Gevond Khlgatian Eugenia Krichevsky

Jonah Leshin Samuel Levy Elina Litvak

Jonathan Liu Michael Marmar Ross Mascho

Ryan Moore Madeleine Outman Maya Prokupets

Lisa Radding Nathan Randall Elizabeth Rapoport

Elizabeth Rossolimo Jonathan Scherr Gabriel Sterne

Jed Talvacchia Maya Tsukernik Alexander Tun

Jennifer Wu Tian Xie Alexander Yellen

Sofia Embid

APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

MOTION: It was moved to approve the School Committee

regular meeting minutes of 9/8/03, and

executive session meeting minutes of 9/22/03.

(Zaleznik - Levine)

unanimous

DISCUSSION ITEMS

DISCUSSION ON UPDATED NEWTON NORTH HIGH SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT

Anne Larner began the discussion by announcing that, according to the Law Dept., they have found no deed restrictions on the site or issues around restrictions because of any adjacency to recreational land. All of the land on the site has been deemed to be school property. The Law Dept. is going to provide documentation in this regard.

Nancy Levine commented that there have been people in the community who have felt that the City could fix some of the problems at Newton North, such as the HVAC system, for a small amount of money; thereby eliminating the need for renovations or a new school. She referred to the study in their packet from Griffith and Vary, Inc., consulting engineers, who have clearly indicated that this is not the case. She would like this report to be posted on the website.

Anne Larner stated that she has already requested that this document be placed on the website and has sent the material to the Board of Aldermen.

Dick Amster, Turner Construction, stated that they will begin tonight's presentation by doing a brief summary of the previous options and then will submit information on the new versions.

Carl Franceschi, DRA, recapped the original options and added some schematics of the phasing. In the hybrid models, the first phase consists of the construction of the new wing, while the existing building remains in operation. The second phase consists of renovating the core spaces over the summer, while the school is unoccupied. The third phase follows completion of the new construction, in which demolition begins on the old building. The major portion of this work will also take place over the summer. The fourth phase is final construction and minor renovations. In the new school model, all the work is done while students and staff remain in the old building. Some disruption would occur during construction, with the possible loss of the tennis courts and some parking.

The new option (D1) places the new wing of construction over the footprint of the track and football field, which gets reoriented 90 degrees. The new Main St. runs in an east/west direction perpendicular to the existing building, with the core spaces surrounding that area, i.e., auditorium, cafeteria, library, and physical education facilities. Balconies could overlook Main St. from the third floor. The academic and career & technical education spaces are organized in wings off the new Main St., which now intersects the building in a more central location than the other schemes. This option provides an opportunity for creating a new main entrance directly off Lowell Ave. rather than on the corner of Elm St. He then outlined the floor plans in more detail. The suggestions for the old Main St. area would be to house the Tigers Loft and develop an arts and music wing, as a natural association with the Little Theater and auditorium. The television studio could also be housed in this area, as could some special education programs, which may desire some separation from the higher traffic areas. In terms of travel time from one end of the building to the other, their estimates indicate it currently takes 3 1/2 minutes, without a lot of congestion. In reality, this can be stretched to as much as 5 minutes. In D1, the estimated time is 3 3/4 minutes. As an aside, the estimate timing for Newton South is similar. The phasing of this hybrid is similar to the others.

The new option (D2) is configured similar to D1, but there is more demolition of the current Main St. and the program area is redistributed over the wings of the new building, making them slightly longer. In this option, they need to connect to the auditorium, little theater, and film lecture hall and would have to rebuild the kitchen. Phasing is the same as in the other options, except for a period of time in phase 4, where the cafeteria would be open but there would be no kitchen for cooking on site. They anticipate the kitchen being off-line for approximately a year-and-a-half.

Dick Amster next outlined the budgets. He began by noting that there were some mathematical errors in the previous budget report on Option C2, which has been corrected. He explained that in some of the options and the new building, the relocation of the field is optional. However, the ones where the footprint of the new wing moves into the field/track area require relocation. Option A/B/C1 is $86,478,500; C2 - $92,526,500; D1 - $86,971,500; D2 - $93,536,500; new school - $105,486,000. Synthetic turf and track would cost an additional $650,000 and is supported by the athletic director. Repairing and replacing the seating in the stadium would be an additional $1,400,000 and to relocate would add another $300,000.

Dori Zaleznik expressed displeasure with the notion of the kitchen being offline for so long in D2.

Susan Albright asked about switching the library with classroom spaces in one of the new wings, in order for it to be more centrally located and to spread the academic classes around.

Carl Franceschi stated that this could be challenging, because of the location of the columns in the library and the issue of natural lighting, as the library only has windows on one side.

Annie Levine asked if every plan includes renovation to the auditorium.

Carl Franceschi replied in the affirmative.

Annie Levine requested that they include a backstage in their designs. As it currently stands, one has to go all the way around the area to make an entrance from the other side of the stage.

Carl Franceschi agreed that backstage space is important and was configured into the new options. He noted that Option D1 could also allow for a drama/rehearsal type space on the second floor.

Dori Zaleznik asked about moving the third wing up to encompass the plaza area, which would make Main St. less lengthy.

Carl Franceschi noted that there is flexibility in the design for future wings off of the axis. However, moving the wing up would impact the light in the cafeteria and library and would extend the point of contact between the old and new buildings.

Dori Zaleznik asked if the wings would encroach on the neighborhood.

Carl Franceschi stated that the wings end at the bottom of the slope, so the first floor of the new construction is at the level of the football field. The hill is substantially higher than the football field and once the stands are removed the landscape would be restored to its natural incline and would not require any retaining walls. The rooms are oriented into the courtyard rather than hillside. The three-story building would be slightly under 50' and would look like a one/two story building from Hull St. There is also the opportunity to replant the hillside to screen the area. There would be no entrance from that side of the building, other than an egress for fire purposes only.

Mayor Cohen asked how long the demolition would take.

Dick Amster estimated two months, with the goal of having it done over the summer.

Mayor Cohen asked about the impact of the demolition on the neighborhood.

Dick Amster responded that mitigation measures would be included around issues such as noise, dust, trucking requirements, etc.

Mayor Cohen asked about the ability for smaller learning spaces in Option D1.

Carl Franceschi reiterated that the drawings before them are feasibility diagrams only. What appears to be repetitive classroom space in reality can house a variety of configurations. There is a good mix of both larger and smaller spaces along with typical classrooms.

Superintendent Jeffrey Young asked how they envision the area where the old and new school will connect.

Carl Franceschi stated that there would be an open staircase to connect the levels and since it is an entrance point, it could be a good location for the office. They would envision the lobby as an extension of the cafeteria, where people could sit and have a cup of coffee. It will be a very light, open, and welcoming space.

Jeff Young commented that in a functional sense it sounds like a hub that might achieve some of the objectives they have been discussing around Main St.

Susan Albright hopes they can retain the plaza space because it is used in the warm weather as a gathering spot. She asked if the State has guidelines with regard to square footage for smaller learning spaces.

Carl Franceschi replied that the State only requires that they meet space regulations for general classrooms and total overall square footage. However, there are no restrictions on how that space can be utilized.

Susan Albright asked about the library spaces that have been taken over by the needs of the special education program.

Carl Franceschi stated that all the new designs return that space to the library and provide for the special education program elsewhere.

Dick Amster mentioned that they have had discussions about using drywall vs. masonry in building, so that they can reorganize more easily in the future, if the delivery of instruction changes.

Anne Larner appreciates the need to anticipate future changes in education and they should consider various ways to meet that flexibility.

Marc Laredo agrees that flexibility is important. However, adequate soundproofing

of classrooms is also critical for effective teaching. He then asked about the number

of parking spots in each option.

Carl Franceschi stated that the existing building has 380 parking spaces; Option A/B/C1 - 410; Option C2 - 480; Option D1 - 505; Option D2 - 530. There are some variables associated with these numbers around tradeoffs with green space and tennis courts. For informational purposes, Newton South will have 475-480 parking spaces upon completion of that project.

Dori Zaleznik asked about the square footage of the new school option.

Carl Franceschi replied that the program areas would be essentially the same in the new school option as in the hybrids, except for any areas where they would want to consciously exceed the School Building Assistance Program (SBAP) guidelines, such as the pool, athletic facilities, and assembly spaces.

Leslie Schneider asked if the schedule for the new options is as aggressive as the others.

Carl Franceschi responded that the schedule still relies on renovating key spaces during the summers, so he does not see a great difference among the options in this regard.

Dick Amster added that the only glitch is that they need to address the field and stadium immediately, so that the site work can begin. They would have to do this in the next phase of the design.

Leslie Schneider asked if the students are using the lobby area and commons rooms at Newton South.

Carl Franceschi stated that the commons rooms appear to be working well, but some of the adjacent spaces continue to be utilized for temporary purposes. The exterior of the project is still compromised by the construction activities, so none of the outside gathering spaces are yet available. He then continued his presentation on SBAP guidelines around maximum square footage and process for reimbursement.

Mayor Cohen asked if the architects could provide calculations on the City's share of the costs for the various options.

Dick Amster replied that this will be part of the final feasibility study.

Carl Franceschi showed some examples of spaces that might help the Committee to visualize some of the things they have been discussing. These included two vs. three story buildings, town square models as gathering spaces, natural lighting, multi-level Main Streets, and a vocational school, with a mall type Main Street, that includes a hair salon, restaurant, bank and a store.

Dick Amster reported on their investigations into parking structures. They have costed out three types of garages/decks, each holding 120 vehicles. The first is a double-loaded bay structure on ground level, with a ramp to a second level, at a cost of $2,545,797. This is the most efficient scheme for fitting into the footprint, but involves pre-cast concrete, which is cumbersome and requires a large crane to install. The second is a cast-in-place structure, at a cost of $2,789,344, which involves numerous truck deliveries on site. The third option would be an underground parking lot, at a cost of $6,588,681. If they were to encounter water or soil issues, the cost could increase significantly.

Susan Albright mentioned that in the pictures that the architects showed around the various ways schools have designed their main gathering spaces, they all had both classrooms and program space intermingled. She has concerns that the Main St. they are designing not be central to the building, but instead will be just a long corridor with classroom wings off of one side.

Dick Amster noted that, in addition to the length aspect of Main St., there is also the cross dimension factor that needs to be considered, when moving from classroom to core spaces. Having the field side consist mostly of glass creates a visual interest in this regard.

Marc Laredo noted that a lot of their assumptions are based on changing to a synthetic field material. It would be helpful to have a more in-depth analysis on the safety factors and replacement costs vs. natural grass, since it an expensive option.

Carl Franceschi stated that having just completed a project at Milton High School where they changed to synthetic turf, they have a good deal of data available that they will share with the Committee.

At this point, Anne Larner presented a draft matrix that has received input from all Committee members and which evolved from the architects' original list. It encompasses the various concepts they have been discussing throughout the process. The categories include educational product, physical structure, other (community, site/recreation, traffic, parking, future maintenance, ease of serving), construction, and cost. She envisions this as a tool to help them converse and focus discussion.

Marc Laredo suggested posting this on the website for community input.

Nancy Levine asked about the process for assessing the categories.

Anne Larner stated that she did not presuppose any type of rating scale. She actually feels that a numbering system is inappropriate and would prefer some type of descriptive/narrative rating system.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FY05 BUDGET GUIDELINES

Dori Zaleznik referred to the revised draft of the guidelines, which incorporates some of the comments raised at the last meeting. Clearly there needs to be substantial savings out of the next year's budget. However, rather than just arbitrarily taking the hatchet to the document, their goal is to evaluate what has been done this past year, in order to make knowledgeable decisions. Special education is broken out separately, because of the number of intricate issues, particularly relating to the Circuit Breaker legislation and its impact on the budget. It is hoped that they can find opportunities for both savings and continued improvement in this program. Finally, she wished to state that the document, while reasonable, does incorporate a great deal and it is unlikely they can sustain everything that is included in the goals. However, they hope this provides a framework for discussion and eventual compromises.

Jeff Young thanked the Committee for the document, which provides good guidance in the development of the budget. However, he noted that it is an ambitious effort and he does not want to raise false expectations.

Gail Glick asked that they address the special education preschool referrals, which are climbing at an alarming rate.

Susan Albright would like to add some language affirming their philosophy of the special education program in terms of inclusion and mainstreaming.

Dori Zaleznik did not intend for the document to indicate that they were moving away from inclusion efforts, but rather that there are different ways to look at that concept, such as neighborhood inclusion programs vs. mainstreaming classrooms. They can reaffirm the philosophy with some rewording.

Susan Albright would prefer to leave it to the educators to determine where they might find efficiencies rather than the Committee dictating the specifics.

Nancy Levine would like to know what the impact has been this year of the 18% reduction in the per pupil allocation and whether they want to compound that again next year.

Jeff Young appreciates her comments but anticipates a significant gap once again this year, so it is going to be a difficult balancing act.

Mayor Cohen announced that he expects to have an allocation figure for the Committee by 12/1.

Anne Larner noted that the next School Committee meeting will be post-election and it will be important to rediscuss this topic again with the new Committee.

ACTION ITEMS

VOTE TO RATIFY NEWTON TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (NTA) CONTRACT

Gail Glick, Chairperson of the School Committee Negotiation Subcommittee, is pleased to present the Memoranda of Agreements with the five units of the NTA.

It was a difficult bargaining process and is only a one-year agreement, predicated on the notion that they will be in a better position to gauge federal, state, and local funding next year. It was determined that it would be too risky to agree to a long-term contract given the unpredictability of the financial circumstances. The basic substance of the contracts includes a 2% wage increase and some changes in co-payments and deductibles in health insurance.

Anne Larner added that the contracts also calls for the elimination of the professional development day for staff. A letter will be sent home to all families with regard to this change, with the understanding that there will be no penalties to any child whose family has already made plans for that day.

Mayor Cohen thanked all parties involved. Given the difficult financial times they are facing, it is a great accomplishment to have reached an agreement.

Anne Larner thanked both sides for the tremendous amount of labor they put into this effort, particularly in working over the summer months.

Gail Glick commented on the work that all members put forth to preserve the type of relationship necessary to continue their discussions in an amicable approach.

Jeff Young thanked the administration and staff for all of their efforts around the data collection and information gathering, which was necessary to support these efforts.

MOTION: It was moved to ratify the Memoranda of Agreements

between the Newton School Committee and the

Newton Teachers Association, as submitted, for

Units A, B, C, D & E.

(Glick - Zaleznik)

unanimous

COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee decided to hold a special meeting on 11/6/03 to take up the items that were tabled this evening.

Nancy Levine reported on the User Fee Subcommittee's work with staff and parents around the issue of transportation for play dates in the afternoon. While they have not completed their discussions, they anticipate some mitigation will be in place shortly.

PUBLIC COMMMENT

Deena David, Waban, asked that the Committee to keep in mind the fact that Newton South High School is projected to have the largest increase in student enrollment in the district and they will need the necessary resources to accommodate this increase. They will be communicating with the Committee on the specifics of these needs through the School Council and the Principal.

Cheryl Turgel, President of the NTA, thanked everyone involved in the negotiations. While neither side reached 100% satisfaction, they never lost focus on the need to be fair to the employees in the system.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.