MINUTES OF BUDGET MEETING –
PRESENT: Chairperson
Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Dori Zaleznik, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Patricia
Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Reenie Murphy, Mayor David Cohen,
Superintendent Jeffrey Young
ABSENT: student representatives
Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at
FY06 BUDGET DISCUSSION
School Committee
Anne Larner asked if the administration could
review the spending in the legal assistance account and look at the needs for
next year, to see if there are any economies that can be made in this area.
Superintendent Young suggested Gail Glick join members of the
administration in this review, as she heads up the School Committee’s
negotiating team.
Nancy Levine asked about the issue with re: to increased School
Committee and Board of Aldermen stipends being discussed by the finance
committee of the Board of Aldermen.
Anne Larner mentioned that should it pass it
will be effective starting
Dori Zaleznik wrote to the Aldermen suggesting that this was not
the appropriate time for increasing stipends.
The Mayor noted that the change would also require his signature.
Marc Laredo asked what is entailed in the benefits line item.
Sandra Guryan, Assistant Superintendent for
Business, Finance & Planning, replied that it includes an estimate for the
contract settlement for both this year and next, including salaries, health,
dental and life insurance benefits.
Marc Laredo stated that it would be helpful to see what the cost of the
salaries and benefits are broken down by responsibility center in every
area.
Anne Larner reminded members that there are
some contracts outstanding which will have to remain in a lump sum.
Jeff Young asked if
Sandy Guryan responded that these figures are
calculated by each individual person and health plan, with figures provided by
the Chief Budget Officer of the City, who works with insurance companies and
various consultants. A tremendous amount
of analysis is involved and they continuously monitored and updated this area
right until the budget document was prepared.
Dori Zaleznik would like the Committee to keep an eye out for
the larger areas in the budget where they might be able to find some savings in
order to redress some of the staffing cuts.
Reenie
Murphy asked if the FY05 utilities and maintenance numbers were a revised
forecast.
Sandy Guryan explained that adjustments were
made in these areas when utility rates went up, Circuit Breaker legislation
credits came in, and there was a reduction in tuition costs, so those
adjustments are reflected in the document as of December.
Central Staff
No questions.
Human Resources
Marc Laredo asked about the substitute teachers
line item, which looked relatively low in FY04 and had a fairly substantial
increase in FY05 and again in FY06. He
wondered whether there might be some strategies that could be employed to
reduce this cost.
Paul Stein, Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, explained that
this area is complicated because depending upon the length of the teacher
leave, the costs can be charged to the substitute teaching line item for a
short leave or the regular teacher account if it becomes a long-term situation.
There have been significantly more
leaves this year than last.
Sandy Guryan reminded the Committee that in
FY02 they brought the substitute teaching line item up to $800,000 in order to
meet actual needs, which have generally been in that vicinity most years,
although at times it is exceeded. It is
also complicated by what Paul explained in terms of paying the teacher and
replacement out of the same account. To
date this year they have spent approximately $370,000 in substitute costs, so
she estimates the need for the full amount that is in the budget and therefore
recommended level-funding this item.
Marc Laredo asked if they have data on the various reasons teachers take
leaves and if there are any strategies to cut it back to previous lower levels.
Paul Stein stated that the younger workforce has resulted in a
significant increase in maternity leaves.
When they occur mid-year substitute costs are involved. Other reasons have to do with long-term
family medical issues. The only strategy
he can recommend is to continue to track this as best they can.
Sandy Guryan added that the instructional
support staff (ISS), who are in the building regularly, tend to be the ones to
cover when teachers attend professional development workshops and day-to-day
absences.
Reenie
Murphy expressed caution in reducing this area without better information
around actual trends because the young staff most likely will result in
increased maternity leaves.
Marc Laredo asked about the unemployment estimates.
Sandy Guryan based these figures on the
average annual payment to someone who makes an unemployment claim. A formula was used to calculate the decrease
in benefits as a result of fewer staff, with the offsetting increase of the
estimated number of people who would file claims. The estimate is 76% of those reduced would
claim. It is a conservative figure but
she observed last year that quite a few people stayed on unemployment for the
maximum amount of time.
Marc Laredo commented that not all reductions will result in people
being laid off, as some will be retirements that they will then not fill. He would urge them to review this area in an
attempt to lower this estimate.
Anne Larner agreed and would encourage them to
look at the data by categories rather than a sum of full time equivalencies
(FTEs), because some people are probably more likely to be claimants than
others.
Jeff Young added that it might also be beneficial to get some
information from other local school districts in terms of their staffing and
reductions, to get a sense of the likelihood of some of
Operations
Michael Cronin, Chief of Operations, provided a brief overview of this
area. In the spirit of trying to keep as
many resources as possible in the classroom, they have taken some cuts in this
area. Unfortunately, this will result in
less service to the facilities, particularly at the two high schools and the
Jeff Young added that the directive to all of the departments was made
in a holistic approach rather than targeting a specific dollar amount. The request was to develop their budgets with
the notion of spending the least amount of dollars to run the system while providing
as much as possible to the direct education of children. The only area that was left untouched was
charter maintenance, which remains level-funded in this budget.
Susie Heyman asked about the impact of cutting
a craftsman on their ability to complete the small repairs needed in the schools.
Mike Cronin stated that after the loss of two of these positions last
year, this will have a domino affect, as they are down from seven to four
craftsmen for all City buildings and one position is solely a locksmith. This cuts into their ability to flexible.
Susie Heyman asked if any of the three will be
working the
Mike Cronin stated that one person is currently working the second
shift, but they are not comfortable with his working alone as that can be a
dangerous situation. This would be the
position that unfortunately would be cut from the budget.
Susie Heyman asked about the increases in the
utility accounts.
Sandy Guryan stated that they have been
scrutinizing these accounts for the past couple of years and with the new
software they are doing a better job of tracking, managing and forecasting in
these areas. They have been in routine
communication with City staff who conduct a similar analysis and who provide
them with the most updated pricing information.
The only prudent thing for them to do was to be sure there were
sufficient funds in these areas to account for these spikes. In addition, they took into account the
increased footage at Newton South. One
of the difficulties with estimating costs in these areas has to do with timing
of when the budget is created, because they are forced to use the prior year’s
history and pricing. They adjust to the
extent possible, but it is not an exact science.
Dori Zaleznik commented on the huge disparities of projected
electrical costs between buildings and the fact that the two largest elementary
schools do not have the greatest usage.
She also wondered about the low projections for the water/sewer account
at Newton North.
Mike Cronin noted that
Dori Zaleznik asked how many buildings are air-conditioned.
Mike Cronin replied that Day, North and South are fully air-conditioned,
as are administrative areas in other buildings.
Discussion was had around air-conditioning at the Newton South field
house and ithe fact that the user fee subcommittee
will have to study how that relates to the fees.
Nancy Levine talked about the .2 FTE reduction
in the Director of Environmental Operations and her concerns about the impact
this will have on the program. She
wondered if they could restore this cut by taking the funding from the
consultant line item. At this point,
they may have the expertise in-house and not need to pay an outside person to
assist in this area.
Mike Cronin agreed that this was a painful cut. The person’s responsibilities technically
were .5 operations and .5 environmental, but she was spending .75 time on the
environmental piece since it was a new program that needed attention. He will review
Marc Laredo is concerned about running inefficient boilers that cost the
system more money in the long run and reducing craftsmen to fix things in the
building only makes the problems worse.
Mike Cronin agreed. They have to
rely on outside contracts for a lot of their HVAC repairs because of limited
staff and the volume of work that is required.
This is only exacerbated by cutting more staff.
Reenie
Murphy asked about the likelihood of the custodial overtime account increasing
as a result of fewer staff.
Mike Cronin stated that the job assignments will have to be absorbed
into the system and decisions will have to be made around how to best do that
without incurring overtime. It may mean
some things will not get done or will get done less frequently. There will most likely be less work orders
completed next year than this year.
Marc Laredo is worried about cutting positions and then hiring outside
people to address emergency needs for more money.
Mike Cronin responded that on a task-by-task basis this scenario is
possible, but they will not be spending the same amount of money because they
will have eliminated a craftsman’s salary and benefits and will be doing less projects.
Anne Larner noted that it is a “Catch 22”
because even though they will be cutting back, they will be paying more for
some projects.
Jeff Young agreed but stated that in the aggregate they will be paying
less. This is meant to be a budget cut
and will not be supplanted by charter maintenance.
Dori Zaleznik asked for an explanation of several line items in
the custodial section – firing license, special pay, and clothing allowance.
Mike Cronin explained that over time these areas have been negotiated
into the contract. The firing license is
also known as the boiler man’s license.
Once a custodian is certified as a class 2 boiler man, that person
receives a $600 annual stipend and it puts them into a different
classification. Special pay refers to
the travel allowances associated with a custodian moving from building to
building. Each custodian receives a $550 clothing allowance annually for
uniforms. Since the contract has not yet
been settled, there may be changes in some of these categories.
Patty Kellogg would like to further explore the air-conditioning costs
and the possibility of other options for the summer program at Day, such as
utilizing fans in the building, moving the program to another location that has
windows that open, or exploring the user fee cost.
Anne Larner mentioned that it has been the
assumption of the School Committee for many years that this was a
self-sufficient program even if that has not been the reality. In difficult fiscal times such as these, if
data indicates that this is not the case, they need to be made aware of that
fact.
Reenie
Murphy asked about the funds allocated for security and
whether that is something that has already been contracted and might
possibly be postponed.
Mike Cronin explained that security is included under the umbrella of
charter maintenance rather than having its own separate line item. The amount changes from year to year
depending on what is being implemented at any given time. There is currently a test location at
Countryside Elementary School with a speed pass system in place that they want
to let run for a while and then review.
He does intend to utilize some funds in FY06 for security. but nothing major. Rather, they will take this in incremental
steps.
Jeff Young asked about the possibilities around collaborative purchasing
of utilities.
Sandy Guryan talked about a recent meeting
with the Education Collaborative (EDCO) group on this issue and they will be
meeting again next week with a consultant who has experience in this area. EDCO is committed to focusing on a couple of
areas where they are attempting to save school districts money and
it
sounds promising enough to pursue.
Transportation
Patty Kellogg asked if the transportation contract can be impacted by
the cost of gasoline.
Sandy Guryan answered that there is a fuel
adjustment clause in the contract and they have a small amount carried forward
for this purpose, but they have not made any significant adjustment.
Business, Finance & Planning
Susie Heyman asked if copy machines fall under
the school equipment account and what other items are included in this area.
Sandy Guryan replied that copiers do fall
under this area, as do non-technology items such as furniture and gym
equipment. They work with the principals around priorities at the beginning of
the year. The cuts in this area
represent eliminating the option for approximately four copiers or funds for
furniture.
Susie Heyman asked if they have investigated
leasing copiers.
Sandy Guryan stated that there has been a past
analysis of this that she could resurrect.
They attempt to get the best prices through the State bid or other
favorable purchasing opportunities.
Anne
Larner requested an analysis around all the revolving
accounts to determine if they are truly self- funded or if there are subsidies
being incurred that they are not aware of, similar to the previous discussion
around the SPACE camp.
Special Education
Jeff
Young stated that mindful of the pace and consistency in which the special
education budget has been escalating, they made an attempt this year to be as
conservative as possible. This has been
a very volatile area over the years, as the needs between regular and special
education compete with one another for the limited dollars available. The original budget that was proposed in this
area, which were the services and programs that staff felt were necessary to
deliver the services to children, was cut by 75% before reaching this
level. His directive was then to
determine what areas were absolutely necessary to hold to their basic
philosophy that a community is measured by how it treats the least able among
its citizens, while at the same time yielding potential savings. They should be very proud of
Margery
Daniels, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services, talked about her first
year in her role, which has been familiarizing herself with all of the programs
and offerings. This is a very inclusive
district and her predecessors built an outstanding program of which
Marc
Laredo commented that the special education budget is 24% of the total spending
for next year and 30% if benefits are added.
No one disagrees that they need to serve the children and
Margie
Daniels responded that she would probably target the two most expensive areas
in the budget, which are out-of-district placements and aides. However, reducing the number of
out-of-district placements means building more capacity within the system,
which would equate to additional costs for more in-house programs. Philosophically this would be in the best
interest of students, but since they are in budget discussions the cost factor
is important. In terms of the number of
aides in the system, she has been having conversations with principals around
how to better deploy the staff with more grouping of children. She pointed out the success of the elementary
and middle school stabilization programs, which reduce the number of students
who are tuitioned out of the system.
Jeff
Young mentioned that they are taking a slight budgetary risk around these
accounts which, as has been previously mentioned, have been cut from the
original proposal even though they are recommending an increase. Out-of-district placements
is a very volatile account.
Margie
Daniels agreed that this account is difficult to predict. A very small number of students who move in
with costly placements would be very detrimental.
Mayor
Cohen asked if the particulars with regard to out-of-district tuitions could be
explained more in-depth, such as how much is state mandated and whether
contingencies are necessary.
Margie
Daniels replied that every system in the State would appreciate a contingency
fund for unanticipated tuition placements, but that is an unlikely
scenario. There are a variety of
out-of-district placements, including residential, private day school, and
collaborative programs. At times they
work with a variety of state agencies, such as the Dept. of Social Services,
Dept. of Public Health and Dept. of Mental Health. The tuition rates run the gamut from fairly
inexpensive to extremely costly. They
try very hard not to have to send a child out of the system, but if their needs
cannot be met within the schools it becomes necessary.
Mayor
Cohen asked if these budget figures factor into play the notion of trying to
keep more students in
Margie
Daniels replied in the affirmative. The
original request was larger and so they have their work cut out.
Anne
Larner asked if staff could talk more about the
programs that are in place in the schools.
Steve
Litwack, school psychologist,
Anthony
Laverde, school psychologist,
Reenie
Murphy asked if all of these students were on Individual Educational Plans (IEPs).
Anthony
Laverde stated that some were and others had some
accommodations without direct special education services.
Susie
Heyman is very impressed with the programs that
currently exist and which help so many students be able to remain in
school. She mentioned that Newton’s
legislators will be attending an upcoming School Committee meeting to discuss
budgetary issues and that would be the time to talk about some specific areas
where additional funding is needed.
Margie
Daniels mentioned that the Circuit Breaker legislation allows them to recoup
expenses for students that are kept in-district, so an increase in the
percentage that they receive in this area would be very helpful.
Nancy
Levine thanked them for the human face they are putting to the material. She expressed concerns about more pressure on
the entire system as a result of the cuts that will have to be made. She would be cautious about considering
tinkering with what she feels is a modest and conservative increase in this
area. She asked how they plan to
accommodate for the increased referrals in the preschool program.
Margie
Daniels responded that this is one of her greatest concerns. They are responsible for the education of
children at the age of three who are identified as having a disability. They are utilizing the Applied Behavioral
Analysis program, which is an effective model in working with children on the
autism spectrum, but it is very labor intensive and expensive program, which
requires staff who are specially trained. However, it has the most success in keeping
these children in the system. They are
recommending in this budget the addition of a pragmatic language piece in this
program, which would help these children with language and socialization. Research indicates that there is a window of
opportunity up to approximately age 5 to develop these skills and they want to
reach these children before that window shuts.
Dori
Zaleznik asked if they could break out the line items
for all the costs associated with the preschool programs, as well as those
associated with the programs that support the 18-22 year old category, for
which they are also required to educate.
This information would be helpful for their discussions with the
legislators in terms of pointing out the costs they are paying not associated
with the K-12 program and requesting some assistance in these areas. She asked how they are addressing the needs
of the latter age group.
Margie
Daniels noted that Susan Rosenzweig, SPED Department
Head at Newton North, has developed a creative proposal that will accommodate
the needs of these students through a shifting of staff with no additions to
the budget. They will be running a
separate program for students who need more of a vocational vs. academic
focus. This will allow for better
clustering of these students and allow for specific work blocks during the day
when they go out to their job sites.
This will save on transportation and staffing costs.
Susan
Rosenzweig stated that she cannot take credit for
this plan, which was developed by the inclusion facilitators. There are approximately 16-20 students in
this 18-22 age bracket, with a wide range of disabilities, for which they are
trying to provide educational, vocational and community experiences. They are in the process of trying to find
space in the building to house this program.
The goal is to transition them over to adult agencies.
Anne
Walker, SPED Department Head at Newton South, stated that they have had a
similar program in place at South and it has been quite successful. With regarding to keeping students from leaving
the system for out-of-district placements, they have also been attempting to
bring students back by visiting the schools, observing the programs and talking
with the parents.
Jeff
Young mentioned that the pressure is coming from both directions because they
want to bring these students back into the system, but aides are often the
people who enable them to integrate back into the schools and they are cutting
50 FTEs in this budget.
Marc
Laredo commented that the cut in the aides positions
are coming from the regular education budget.
Jeff
Young responded that technically they have not yet specified where these
positions will come from, but some will be in special education.
Gail
Glick asked if there are any other areas in this budget where they are
considering creative proposals.
Margie
Daniels mentioned that they are putting some focus on the middle schools to
build capacity in each building so as to have as few citywide programs as
possible, which will save on transportation costs and keep students in their
neighborhood school. It is important to
remember that the things that they do for students with special needs have
implications for the entire population.
Jeff
Young asked about the diagnostic process.
Anthony
Laverde stated that they usually receive referrals
from the classroom teacher and they always get parental input before even
beginning the evaluation process. One of the fastest growing areas was students
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which seems to have recently
leveled off. The psychiatric disorders
area has taken off, with increased incidences of depression and anxiety. Sometimes students have a combination of
issues, so it is a careful reviewing of the symptoms and discussions with
teachers, guidance counselors, and parents.
Students are then interviewed and assessed with formal testing tools.
Jeff
Young asked how many students are assessed annually.
Anthony
Laverde replied that this year they assessed
approximately 125-150 and these numbers increase each year. They run the gamut from something as simple
as providing accommodations for SAT/MCAS testing, to possible school
failure. He would like to see more
support in place prior to getting to the formal assessment stage, which might
lower the numbers that they are seeing or at least provide more diagnostic
information. The way this would work is
that the instructional support teams in the schools would brainstorm solutions
that would then be put into place and reviewed six weeks later and, at that
point, if necessary, it would go to the formal assessment process. This would also fit into the new federal
requirements of responding to intervention before defining a disability.
Dori
Zaleznik asked if there is any data around whether
some of the special education referrals at the middle school level might be a
developmental issue that occurs as children reach pre-teen years or if it is a
factor in having a middle school environment, which is more like a high school
vs. elementary. She wondered if they had
any information from communities that are K-8 as to whether they experience an
increase in SPED referrals at this age.
Anthony
Laverde noted that he worked in such a system and his
impressions were that there was not a noticeable difference in the numbers. However, a known environment that does not
require a transition may keep the lid on problems for a slightly longer period.
Stephanie
Powers, Assistant Director of Pupil Services, noted that they are gathering
information to try to explain the increases at the middle school level. Some discussion has been had about the
transition from elementary school and the need for greater collaboration among
staff. In terms of the program itself,
they are looking at efficiencies and building capacity. There are several professional development
initiatives occurring between their staff and that of the Curriculum &
Instruction Dept. One specific example
is a collaboration between regular and special
education teachers on specialized instruction of working with struggling
writers.
Marc
Laredo asked if they perceive any change in the status of grant funding in the
SPED area next year.
Margie
Daniels stated that the largest grant they receive is based on population, so
they may be able to anticipate more funding, although she does not believe it
will be significant.
Marc
Laredo commented that grants which pay for staffing skew the reality of the
numbers because that staffing is not listed in the budget line item.
Susie
Heyman asked about the guidance counselor ratio.
Margie
Daniels replied that the ratio may go up slightly given the cut of 1.0 FTE and
the shifting of staff to equalize the high schools. The current ratio is 172:1.
Jeff
Young concluded the discussion by mentioning that one of the main reasons they
have such a good program in
English Language Learners (ELL)
Anne
Larner asked about the changes in the ELL population
and program mandates.
Teresita
Tsikas, ELL Coordinator, stated that there is not a
great change in the population systemwide, but there
has been a 50% increase at South from the shifting of students as part of the
plan to equalize the high schools. What
they are seeing is that the students who come to the program have greater needs
as a result of interrupted schooling or coming from systems where the rigor was
less demanding. In terms of the
requirements, they are meeting these through maintaining students in
neighborhood schools and in as inclusive a program as possible. While some of this access is provided
directly by the ELL teachers, they also rely on aides to provide native
language support.
Anne
Larner asked if there have been any shifts in the
languages themselves.
Teresita
Tsikas answered that the largest population remains
Asian and there has been an increase in the Hispanic and Brazilian
numbers. The rental market is currently
soft, which is opening up opportunities for people whom in the past could not
afford
Marc
Laredo asked for the number of students in the program last year, this year,
and projected for next year.
Teresita
Tsikas replied that it is usually around 600 but she
will provide them with the specifics.
Marc
Laredo asked what impact and costs the new legislation has had on
Teresita
Tsikas replied that the mandates have not resulted in
a major change because they have always had a primarily inclusive program. However, they no longer offer the bilingual
component. She suspects they will have a
program review by the Department of Education next year and it is possible that
they may recommend some changes at that time.
Adjournment
The
meeting was adjourned at