MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
TABLED ITEMS FROM
PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Susan
Albright, Gail Glick, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Leslie
Schneider, Dori Zaleznik, Jenna Barocci, student representative - Newton South
High School
ALSO PRESENT: School Committee elect Reenie Murphy and Susan
Heyman
ABSENT: Mayor David Cohen
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Anne Larner
called the meeting to order at
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no members of
the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.
REPORTS
REPORT ON SUMMER CURRICULUM
WORKSHOPS
Gail Glick asked about the
literacy initiative.
Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent
for Curriculum & Instruction, stated that the science, English language
arts, and math coordinators are working cooperatively in formulating and
developing a series of workshops around this effort. They have been building capacity for this initiative
so that teachers see it as a tool that can be used in all subject areas to
teach in an integrated manner. Some of
their work has been propelled by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS) exam, in which a number of the mathematics questions are
dependent upon students' ability to read well.
Leslie Schneider asked how
they are incorporating writing into this initiative.
Carolyn Wyatt responded
that the writing component is an integral part of the initiative and the
Committee will hear more about the specifics later in the year, when they bring
forward their report on this initiative.
Writing and reading are inexplicably related in the series of activities
that occur in the classroom, so that students see the connections. She also noted that there have been gains in
MCAS results in both the reading and mathematics scores in schools where there
has been a major focus on the literacy initiative.
Leslie Schneider asked if
the effort is limited to the elementary schools.
Carolyn Wyatt replied that
it has moved to the secondary level.
Susan Albright asked about
the number of staff who participated in the summer workshops.
Carolyn Wyatt replied that
there were 833 participants, which is over half of the teaching force.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DISCUSSION OF EQUITY REPORT
Patty Kellogg outlined the
three areas that require discussion under this topic:
1.) whether to broaden the
definition of technology for which PTOs can fundraise
to
include periphery and infrastructure costs;
2.) whether to permit PTOs
to fundraise for professional development;
3. whether to set a policy requiring PTOs to contribute to a
central fund once a target is reached.
Patty Kellogg began with
item #1 and mentioned that infrastructure is usually thought of as a long-term
fixed asset. In reality, much of it is
useful for only several years and is also portable.
Marc Laredo has been
swayed by cogent arguments on both sides of equity issues. Philosophically, he believes that private
funds should not be used to supplement public education. However, given the fiscal realities, he feels
this is a more preferable option than imposing fees. In terms of this specific item, if they are
going to let schools fundraise for computers, it only makes sense to allow them
to do the same for the peripheries, so that the computers can be useful.
Susan Albright agreed that
without the infrastructure the computers cannot be networked, so it makes sense
to expand the definition of technology for which they can fundraise.
Gail Glick asked if there
is any aspect of the infrastructure that is not portable.
Steve Silverman, K-8
Coordinator of Instructional Technology, stated that wiring is the only item
that is permanent. The switches, hubs
and extensions can be moved to other locations.
Anne Larner stated that it
is the Committee's role to decide what they want to fund and where to draw the
line. She feels they need to look at the
long-range picture and make some commitments about what they are willing to
spend as a system and then be consistent.
Marc Laredo is willing to
move that line somewhat further given that they have already allowed PTOs to
fundraise for pieces of technology.
Nancy Levine asked if
there are guidelines in place in terms of how much PTOs can raise in this area.
Anne Larner replied that
the fundraising has to be consistent with the systemwide and individual school
technology plans.
Leslie Schneider fears
they are not going to have sufficient funds for technology in the near
future. She feels it does not make sense
to allow PTOs to purchase the equipment and then not be able to network or
train staff, which brings them to item #2.
Marc Laredo does not
support fundraising for staff training, as this would usurp the duties of the
School Committee.
Gail Glick has concerns
about allowing PTOs to raise funds for staff.
Given the breadth of professional development offered by the system, she
does not see why this cannot be incorporated into that program.
Anne Larner stated that
fundraising requires a partnership between the school system and the PTO and
the system needs to own its part, which is the
responsibility for staff.
Carolyn Wyatt mentioned
the summer I Camp training, which they cosponsored with the Newton Schools
Foundation, as well as the general budget, which has funded a substantial piece
of technology training. If the Committee
desires, they could continue to earmark funding specifically for this area.
Anne Larner noted that
this could be an item for the Budget Guidelines, as it is the Committee's
fundamental responsibility to decide allocation of resources.
Pat Tietbohl, PTO Council
Equity Liaison, wanted to reassure people that the Equity Committee was not
suggesting that PTOs handle professional development on their own, but rather
in conjunction with the technology department and the program developed by the
system.
Susan Albright wished that
the schools could be viewed as one entity divided into different campuses, so
that they can have equal opportunity in technology fundraising.
Steve Silverman noted that
they try to equalize the technology, to the best of their ability, by focusing
funding on schools that have done less fundraising.
Susan Albright appreciates
these efforts but does not believe they are being successful.
Marc Laredo noted that
people tend to be motivated to fundraise for their own school, where they can
see a direct result of their efforts.
Susan Albright referred to
item #3 and talked about setting a funding limit, at which point a percentage
of anything over that amount could be distributed to a central fund. This keeps the incentive at the building
level, but helps other schools as well.
Gail Glick talked about
the need to have a better understanding of the inventory at each school. Some schools that do not have the ability to
raise as much money for technology spend a great deal of effort to obtain it
through grant-writing, which may earmark the hardware for specific functions or
programs. Simply counting the number of
computers in each school is not sufficient.
The question is more complex than just comparing a list.
Steve Silverman presented
the Committee with their most current inventory of spending on technology over
the past three years, which does not include PTO funding. There are many ways to look at this document
and Ms. Glick's comments were very insightful.
Susan Albright mentioned
the chart that she and Patty Kellogg had designed, which compared the per pupil fundraising to the per student computer ratio
and the relationship was very clear. The
schools that had conducted significant fundraising efforts had significantly
more category A technology.
Steve Silverman noted that
without PTO fundraising there will be less technology.
Susan Albright does not
believe they should stop fundraising, but rather help to equalize the efforts.
Anne Larner noted that
there appears to be consensus on the part of the Committee on the first two
items, but the third is more complex.
The Equity Committee will have to do some further work on this
matter. They will need to take into
consideration the comments they have heard this evening and come back to the
Committee with some more specific recommendations.
ACTION ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/VOTE ON
2004-2005 SCHOOL CALENDAR
Carol Daynard reviewed the
three calendar options and the Superintendent's recommendation of #1 -- the
traditional calendar that has both students and staff starting after Labor Day,
even though it is late next year.
Marc Laredo is concerned
that if all of the snow days are used, students will be attending school into
the last week in June, which is traditionally when many children begin summer
camp programs. He feels calendar #2 is a
good compromise, which has teachers returning on Wednesday and Thursday prior
to Labor Day, with Friday off, and students returning on the Tuesday after
Labor Day.
Dori Zaleznik heard from
several parents who mentioned that they vacation through Labor Day and she
suspects this is true for many others, including teachers and their families.
Patty Kellogg feels that
starting before Labor Day, which is a major holiday, would negatively impact
more families.
Anne Larner will support
the traditional calendar this year.
Given the difficult financial times and labor implications, this is not
the time to make major changes. However,
she would support an earlier start in the future.
Susan Albright noted that
many people have already made their plans for Labor Day, so the Committee will
have to decide much further in advance if they want to change the calendar in
future years.
Marc Laredo mentioned that
people have also registered their children for summer camp, which will mean
that many students will not be in attendance the last few days of school if all
snow dates are used.
Nancy Levine and Gail
Glick both weighed in to support the traditional calendar based on the need to
retain stability this year.
MOTION: It was moved to approve option #1 for the
2004-2005 school calendar
-- teachers return on Tuesday, 9/7 and students on Thursday, 9/9.
(Zaleznik
– Levine)
6
- 2 - 1
Opposed:
Absent:
Mayor Cohen
DISCUSSION RE: MASC/MASS (
Nancy
Levine presented the eight resolutions on which she will need direction from
the Committee in order to vote at the upcoming MASC/MASS conference.
Resolution #1
deals with reforms in the structure of school and municipal finance.
Anne
Larner finds this resolution overly simplistic in its approach to a complex
subject.
Dori
Zaleznik asked if there is a way to acknowledge that current state funding is
not sufficient without specifically supporting this resolution.
Nancy
Levine explained that she would need to offer different language at the
convention.
Marc
Laredo stated that attempting to develop alternate language on a very complex
issue that impacts fundamental taxation policy by next Monday is quite a
daunting task.
Gail
Glick asked if they could read a position statement following the vote rather
than trying to rewrite the resolution.
Nancy
Levine stated that this is permissible, if that is the
direction the Committee wants to take.
Resolution #2
supports the reorganization of the Board of Education and the repeal of laws
prohibiting practicing educators and school committee members from serving on
the Board.
Committee
members expressed concern about the lack of specificity with regard to making
the Board more accountable, as well as a general agreement that there is
insufficient knowledge about the rationale for the current existing law to make
an informed decision.
Resolution
#3 reaffirms past resolutions regarding suspending
MCAS as a graduation requirement until such time as critical issues have been
addressed.
Nancy Levine agrees with
the resolution in principle but believes that it is too broad.
Anne Larner noted that
ironically, as someone who is a supporter of MCAS, she finds this broad enough
that she can actually agree to this resolution as a strategic move.
Dori Zaleznik stated that
without having multiple assessments in place, it is difficult to justify MCAS
as a graduation requirement. She is
pleased that the Association is asking to be part of a study to examine the
issues instead of simply making a negative statement.
Gail Glick believes the
resolution identifies the issues of concern that have been expressed with
regard to MCAS and the connection with the No Child Left Behind legislation,
which has resulted in a complex system regarding standards and
proficiencies.
Patty Kellogg has concerns
about what suspending MCAS would mean for students who are currently being well
served because this in place.
Nancy Levine suggested
they add a timeframe into the equation, which would put pressure on the need to
work diligently on the study.
Dori Zaleznik noted that
the resolution does not call for suspending the giving of the exam or assessing
students, but only its requirement of passage to graduate. Therefore, it does not have to stop any of
the work that is currently occurring in schools.
Susan Albright mentioned
that students might not take the test seriously if it does not count and asked
why they cannot study it without suspending it as a graduation requirement.
Resolution
#4 supports the retention of a
requirement of a minimum Master’s Degree for vocational school superintendents
and assistant superintendents rather than reducing it to a Bachelor's
Degree.
There appeared to be
agreement to support this resolution.
Resolution
#5, similar to #1, deals with reforms in the structure of school and municipal
finance. The Committee seemed to agree
that this would be as difficult
to support as #1, as it also involves complex issues
that impact on fundamental taxation
policies.
Resolution
#6 calls upon the Department
of Education to develop a comprehensive assessment system to analyze and
monitor the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act re:
MCAS.
Dori
Zaleznik does not believe this resolution demonstrates a clear understanding of
the No Child Left Behind legislation and goes far beyond what she would
support.
Resolution
#7 requests a change in State
Medicaid reimbursements, where money would go directly to school systems vs. the
general fund of the municipality.
Anne Larner stated that
she does not believe
Dori Zaleznik added that
there have been cases where school systems have used the funds for things other
than the purpose for which they were intended.
Resolution #8 calls for a moratorium on charter schools until
research and assessment on their effectiveness has been presented and a fairer
system put in place.
Dori Zaleznik has fewer problems
with the resolutions that incorporate studying an issue rather than simply
stating opposition. There is not a great
deal of funding available at this time for the opening of new charter schools,
so a moratorium is probably not going to impose a great hardship.
Anne Larner supports
charter schools in general, but agrees that additional studies would be
beneficial, so she could support this resolution.
Nancy Levine mentioned the
last two items, which deal with the bylaws and which are mainly housekeeping
issues.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no members of
the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned
at