MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING,
PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson
Dori Zaleznik, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Patricia Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy
Levine, Reenie Murphy, Superintendent Jeffrey Young, Becky Broyles, student
representative – Newton South High School
ABSENT: Mayor David Cohen, student representative
–
At
MOTION: It
was moved, by roll call vote, to convene in executive session for the purpose
of discussing strategy related to collective bargaining. If passed, the Committee will reconvene in
open session at
(Zaleznik - Heyman)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
Ward I,
“yes” (Glick); Ward II, “yes” (Murphy); Ward III, “yes” (Larner); Ward IV,
“yes” (Levine); Ward V, “yes” (Heyman); Ward VI, “yes” (Kellogg); Ward VII,
“yes” (
Chairperson
Anne Larner called the meeting to order at
None.
None.
The
following recognitions were acknowledged:
John
Hart, science teacher at Day Middle School, for being inducted into the
National Hall of Fame of the United States Specialty Sports Association, for
his life-long commitment to softball umpiring.
The
following students in the Newton South High School String Orchestra, conducted
by Jack Rossini, for being selected to perform at this year’s Massachusetts
Music Educators Association’s All State-Conference in March:
Gabe Lefkowitz Elena Helman Rachel
Rakoff
Alisa Timashpolsky Michael Saheb-Kashaf Jeannie
Yoon
Emily Saly Jonathan Wu Jeremy
Wong
Zara Budd Leslie
Kim David Sim
Benjamin Soltoff Annika Kiernan Min
Woo Ji
Dusti Menniti Shoshanna Fine Sarah
Kim
Hannah Durschlag Inn Seol Sarah
Sklar
Sebastian Baverstam
|
|
MOTION: It was moved to approve the School
Committee
regular and executive
session meeting minutes of
(Heyman
– Kellogg)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
PRESENTATION OF THE MASC AWARDS
FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE/ BLUMER BOOK AWARDS
Postponed.
Jeff
Young talked about one of the goals of the system being the need to address the
issue of supporting current staff to consider becoming administrators in the
system. This is the second year of their
involvement with a cohort of teachers and administrators participating in the
Observing and Analyzing Teaching course.
In addition, they are offering a leadership seminar being taught by
central staff members. The first course
had 35 applicants and Paul Stein, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources,
will talk further about this program. In
addition, Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum &
Instruction, and Sandra Delaney, Assistant Director for Curriculum &
Instruction, will discuss the mentoring program, which is a legal requirement
that introduces teachers to the system and supports their growth.
Paul
Stein stated that the requirements around certification and recertification
have become more complex and rigorous, resulting in increased demands on
teachers’ time. The more that can be
offered in-house and the more they can use the talent of their own staff the
better. They are currently in the
process of conducting five principal searches, which attests to the need for
administrators. The leadership seminars
provide an opportunity for people to get a flavor for what it would be like to
be a principal or administrator.
Carolyn
Wyatt introduced the mentor program, which was a volunteer run program for over
25 years and has since grown and changed as a result of the Department of
Education regulations for supporting teachers.
This program works in conjunction with the leadership initiative as a
way to capitalize on the talent among the current teaching force.
Sandy
Delaney described their mission, which is to improve teaching and learning by
providing support, encouragement and guidance to teachers who are new to the
system and to provide professional development opportunities for the mentors
and staff in a collegial, non-evaluative environment. The Program began as a volunteer grassroots
effort in 1987 at the elementary level.
The following year it expanded into the secondary schools, with a
coordinator for each level and a small stipend attached to the positions. In 1993 the Education Reform Act was passed,
which included specific stipulations for induction mentor programs. In a three year period (1997-2000) Newton
hired over 300 new staff to replace those retiring and resigning and the
guidelines for recertification required systems to award 15 professional
development points (PDPs) to mentors for their service. At that time they formed an advisory
committee to review the direction of their work and had one coordinator
overseeing the entire program. In 2001
the Newton Teachers Association (NTA) contract stipulated that mentors would
receive, in addition to the 15 PDPs, either $500 or three in-service credits
and it was decided that the coordinator position would become full-time over a
two-year phased in process. The position
of the coordinator was subsumed into the
Assistant
Director of Curriculum & Instruction in the reorganization of the
Marc
Laredo asked if the same people fill the mentor positions each year.
Sandy
Delaney replied that some people continue to fill the role but there is also
turnover. There is an expected two-year
minimum commitment.
Patty
Kellogg asked if any staff mentor more than one teacher.
Sandy
Delaney responded that they do not encourage this because of the intensity of the work
involved, but there are some occasions where that occurs.
Paul
Stein stated that the concept of mentoring and supporting a new teacher has to
go beyond just the relationship, which sometimes is right on target and other
times might not be ideal because of personality differences. An entire support network is necessary, which
is why they have facilitators to lead small group discussions on particular
topics. The literacy specialist plays an
important role as another connection of support for the teacher. The turnover in teaching nationwide is
tremendous, so there is an expense involved to train someone only to have them
leave the field after several years.
This is why it is so important to intertwine the various support areas
to continue to assist teachers in many ways.
Gail
Glick asked if any of the participants in the leadership seminars were already
involved in certification for degree programs.
Carolyn
Wyatt stated that some are engaged in administrative and principalship programs
and others are working on doctoral programs.
Several people from last year’s course moved into chairing some of the
vacant high school department head roles.
Gail
Glick asked if there is any data to show that the program has served to keep
staff in
Sandy
Delaney replied that only anecdotal data from end-of-the-year evaluations is
available at this point. Teachers who
came from other districts have indicated they had not experienced such support
before and were very appreciative of the program.
Dori
Zaleznik mentioned that it might be helpful if they could obtain data on the
number of staff who leave or are not retained before obtaining professional teaching
status vs. the number who remain. If
they can show that fewer people leave before that timeframe that might lend
some credence to the anecdotes about how well the program is doing.
Paul
Stein agreed and this speaks to the possible need for exit interviews.
Reenie
Murphy commented that the requirements and demands placed on today’s teachers
are so complicated and time-consuming that attrition is not a surprise.
Paul
Stein admitted that a number of staff have come to him struggling with this, but
to date he has not seen any leave the profession. Mostly they are asking for support and
direction. One idea they are considering
is developing collaborative relationships with universities where staff can
cross teach courses. Even the
Commissioner of Education has talked about the need to simplify some of the
rules because it can oftentimes take teachers months just to get an answer to a
question.
Anne
Larner stated that the Committee needs to provide the Superintendent direction
on the level at which he should aim his recommended budget. The Mayor has allocated an increase of $4.3
million over the current budget for the school system, which does not include
state aid, so they hope that this figure will eventually increase.
Susie
Heyman noted that the Mayor has stated that the figure is conservative. In addition, the preliminary indications of
what is going to be in the Governor’s budget appear to offer at least $500,000
more for
Dori
Zaleznik agreed. The past two years they
only asked for the allocation budget because of the fiscal situation, but they
have see what these minimalist budgets have done to the system. Even with this increased amount they are
still likely to face substantial cuts in a number of areas.
Marc
Laredo also favors this approach. In the
past he has felt it was important to stay within the allocation, but he shares
the beliefs that state aid will be slightly better this year.
Gail
Glick supports the proposal as well. At
the end of the budget cycle they will be forced to meet whatever the bottom
line will be, but she believes they can anticipate it will be higher than the
current allocation.
Nancy
Levine concurred. The Mayor’s figures
are prudent, as they should be, but all indications are pointing to additional
state funding. However, it is important
to emphasize that this is still not going to solve all the problems and there
will be very difficult challenges ahead.
Susie
Heyman noted that it has to be a reality based budget, but one that
demonstrates the standards they wish to have in place.
MOTION: It was moved to direct the Superintendent
to create
an FY06 budget that is $1.2
million over the Mayor’s
allocation.
(Levine
– Zaleznik)
Discussion:
Reenie
Murphy stressed the importance of stating that they cannot guaranty that they
will be able to reach this bottom line.
Anne
Larner outlined the process from this point.
If this motion is approved, the Superintendent will develop a budget
that is $5.5 million more than the current budget. The Committee will then review this document
and can add or subtract and will take both a straw and final vote on the
budget. The document will then be passed
along to the Mayor, who either accepts it as presented or cuts the bottom line
to fit into his budget for the entire City, which is then forwarded to the
Board of Aldermen for review. The
Aldermen cannot add to the budget, but can only subtract from the bottom line. In the past there have been outstanding
questions remaining with regard to state aid, which continued through the
spring and at times even into the summer.
If additional funds are forthcoming, and the Mayor has included a lower
budget for the schools, at that point he can return to the Board for a
supplemental appropriation. If the $5.5
million over current budget is approved, but the final allocation is less, the
Committee would have to revisit the document for cuts. It can be a long and complex process and they
will do their best to keep the public informed along the way.
Dori
Zaleznik noted that in terms of percentages, the Mayor’s allocation is 3.2%
over the current budget and their request increases that to 4.3%, which is
still a modest amount.
Jeff
Young reiterated what he has been saying for some time and that is that the
system needs approximately 6% annually to sustain current programs
and
services, which even at that rate are not entirely acceptable in terms of class
size, technology, maintenance, etc.
Vote on directive to
Superintendent for budget: 8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
Susie
Heyman noted that even asking the Superintendent to increase the bottom line
from the Mayor’s allocation is not going to provide them with a budget that is
acceptable. They are going to need to discuss
their goals and priorities.
Anne
Larner mentioned that several years ago they had in-depth discussion about
standards, so there is some history and documentation that might help them in
this regard.
Gail
Glick thinks it would be helpful to see a maintenance of effort budget in
conjunction with the budget they are requesting of the Superintendent.
Dori
Zaleznik noted that as a result of the reductions in the past two years, where
they stand now has slipped substantially lower from where they thought they
should be several years ago. She would
like the maintenance of effort to reflect the previously set standards. However, it is unlikely that they can craft
something that would be even slightly realistic in those terms for a one-year
proposition. Perhaps after the budget
process they could look to how they might address the standards over a
multi-year period.
Marc
Laredo suggested that rather than a specific dollar amount, they might want to
craft their multiyear priorities in terms of goals or percentages.
Jeff
Young stated that the administration can provide two budgets for the Committee
if that is what they desire. However,
the budget book itself will have to be focused on the dollars directed by the
School Committee. They can then develop
a more abbreviated proposal that reaches beyond that to the standards they are
attempting to define. By the next
meeting he will need more clarity around those standards.
Anne
Larner would like to tie this into the policy standards that were set several
years ago prior to the Override around class size, charter maintenance,
etc. There was a lot of discussion with
the public and review of particular areas so it makes sense to work from this
material rather than “reinventing the wheel.”
Jeff
Young agreed that those standards were created after a lot of research and
debate, so they are grounded in reality.
Those standards were not a wish list, but were goals that they should be
attempting to attain for the children of the Newton Public Schools.
Gail
Glick agreed that this is what she meant by maintenance of effort in that they
should try to recapture that timeframe.
Reenie
Murphy added that they will need to address some of the areas that have changed
in the past two years, such as utilities and special education mandates. In addition, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation was not in place at that time.
Dori
Zaleznik is concerned that they will be so far away from the standards that it
might present an unrealistic picture of their ability to get back to that, so
this might be where an incremental process can come into play.
Jeff
Young commented that the standards can be viewed as targets they are aiming to
reach. It is discouraging to go through
successive years of not being able to talk about what they should be doing.
Anne
Larner added that the cyclical patterns of lack of state support for
communities takes several years after an economic downturn to get back to a
standard, but it is important to know what those standards are that they are
trying to accomplish.
Marc
Laredo agreed but would like to discuss where the priorities lie once they have
the materials.
Susie
Heyman explained that in researching the process for accepting funds to hire a
consultant for their public engagement goal, two votes by previous School
Committees were found around gifts/donations to the school system. After consultation with the Law Department,
it was decided to meld these two and rewrite the document into one.
MOTION: It was moved that the School Committee
accepts with gratitude private donations to support the Newton Public
Schools. Accordingly, the School
Committee will accept donations of funds or tangible goods which are given
without restrictions on their use.
In addition, should a donor
wish to earmark a gift of
funds or tangible goods to a specific school or for a
specific purpose, the School Committee will ask the Superintendent to review
the proposed donation and to make a recommendation to the Committee. The criteria for acceptance of restricted
donations will be that:
§
The
gift is consistent with the program and goals of
the Newton Public Schools.
§
The
gift does not violate the principle of equitable
distribution of resources among the schools.
Discussion:
Dori
Zaleznik likes that this policy makes it clear that the School Committee
appreciates donations to the system, but that there is a process in place to be
sure it meets their equity goals. She
asked if they can accept anonymous donations under this policy.
Susie
Heyman stated that according to the Law Department municipalities are allowed
to accept anonymous donations and that does not need to be stated specifically
in the policy.
Anne
Larner noted that this policy is consistent with current practice, but simply
clarifies and simplifies the two previous votes into one.
Patty
Kellogg asked if the donor would be informed of any funds that were not deemed
appropriate for a specific area because of an equity issue.
Susie
Heyman stated that the desire is for the Superintendent to find a way to accept
donations, so an attempt would be made to shape the donation to something that
would be acceptable. However, in the
case where it might be a definite conflict with their goal of equity, the Superintendent
would have to recommend that it not be accepted and allow the donor the
opportunity to withdraw the gift.
Vote on motion to accept private
donations: 8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
VOTE TO ACCEPT FUNDS TO HIRE CONSULTANT
FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GOAL
With
regard to this recommendation, the Committee is moving forward with its public
engagement goal and would like to hire a consultant to help them develop a
communication plan. This motion will authorize
the school system to accept and expend private donations up to a certain dollar
amount for this purpose. Since this
would be a restricted donation, it requires a recommendation from the
Superintendent.
Jeff
Young is happy to make this recommendation because it meets the two criteria
stated in the previous motion, i.e., is consistent with program and goals and
there is no equity issue involved as it is a systemwide donation.
Nancy
Levine asked if the dollar amount is a sum total or if they can accept
individual donations up to that amount.
Susie
Heyman responded that it is a sum total and they believe it is a sufficient
amount to receive the type of assistance they require.
Nancy
Levine suggested rephrasing the draft to indicate this for clarification
purposes.
Committee
members agreed.
Dori
Zaleznik felt it was important to reiterate that this will be private funding
and that no tax dollars will be spent.
MOTION: It was moved to authorize the Newton
Public Schools
to accept and expend private
donations up to a total of
$7,500.00 for the purpose
of engaging a consultant to
aid in drafting a
communications plan.
(Zaleznik
- Murphy)
8
- 0 - 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/VOTE ON USE OF
SCHOOL BUILDINGS FEES
Nancy
Levine stated that tonight they will continue discussion and hopefully vote on
the rental fees for the Newton South High School Field House, for which the Use
of School Buildings Subcommittee recommends $500 for a half day and $1,000 for
a full day rental, with the understanding that the agreement is subject to an
ongoing review of utility costs, specifically in air-conditioned venues. The second area deals with the vacation rate,
of which they are recommending a $130 per diem fee. The per child hour piece is the final part of
their review and they plan to have a recommendation for the next School
Committee meeting on that issue.
MOTION: It was moved to approve the
recommendations for
the use of school buildings
fees pertaining to the
Newton South High School Field
House, as outlined in
the 1/20/05 memorandum from
Michael Cronin,
Chief of Operations, to the
Superintendent.
(Levine
- Kellogg)
8 - 0 - 1
Absent for
vote: Mayor Cohen
MOTION: It was moved to approve the
recommendations for the
use of school buildings fees pertaining to the vacation
rate for after-school programs.
(Levine
- Zaleznik)
Discussion:
Reenie
Murphy and Marc Laredo recused themselves from this discussion and vote since
they both have children in the program.
Gail
Glick asked how they arrived at the $130 figure.
Nancy
Levine stated that this amount covers the cost of operating the buildings without
incurring overtime charges and establishes a standardized structure systemwide.
Gail
Glick asked if it represents an increase on a per diem basis for some programs.
Nancy
Levine replied in the affirmative, but indicated that it may represent a decrease
for others. They have had discussions
with the directors of the programs and they understand that the fee protects
all the programs in a consistent manner.
Vote on motion to approve
recommendation: 6 - 2 - 1
Recused:
Laredo, Murphy
Absent: Mayor Cohen
VOTE TO ACCEPT DONATION
MOTION: It was moved to accept the donation of a
trophy case from Murph Shapiro for Oak Hill Middle School.
(Zaleznik
- Levine)
Discussion:
Dori
Zaleznik noted that in keeping with Murph's selfless nature, instead of a
parting retirement gift, he chose to ask that donations be made to something
that would be in place at the school.
Vote on motion to accept donation: 8
- 0 - 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
PUBLIC COMMENT
Andrew
Gottlieb, 166 Ridge Ave., thanked the Committee for their comments this evening
around the budget. While they may not
get everything they need, it is important to publicly bring forward this
information. He hopes this is the
beginning of a process where they can restore the level of funding to the
system to meet expectations. Parents
will be supportive and will work with the administration in whatever way they
can to make this happen.
ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.