NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 11, 2005

EDUCATION CENTER, FRAZIER ROOM, 7:30 P.M.

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, Charlie Heidlage – student

representative – Newton North High School

ABSENT: student representative – Newton South High School

OPEN SESSION

MOTION: At 6:15 p.m., it was moved, by roll call vote, to convene in

executive session for the purpose of discussing issues

related to collective bargaining. If passed, the Committee

will reconvene in open session at 7:30 p.m.

(Heyman - Levine)

unanimous

ROLL CALL VOTE BY WARD:

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” (Laredo); Ward VIII, “yes” (Zaleznik); Mayor Cohen, absent for executive session

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION

Chairperson Anne Larner welcomed the legislators and commented that Newton is fortunate to have one of the best delegations in the State. She thanked them for taking the time out of their busy schedule to attend tonight’s meeting. She then outlined the process for this segment. She will introduce each legislator and then she and the Superintendent will conduct a brief overview of the educational goals and the financial situation they face. The Committee will then engage in a short dialogue with the legislators. They are interested in hearing about bills of interest to education that might help their situation. Some questions were also posed by community members through the Committee’s website and the Vice-Chairperson will raise them on behalf the public. Members of the delegation are: Senator Cynthia Creem, Representative Ruth Balser, Representative Kay Khan, and Representative Peter Koutoujian. She noted that while none of these people have ever served on the education committee, they have always been supportive of education and Newton has always been their priority. They have been very effective advocates in the past for the school system.

She then began the presentation on the financial situation Newton finds itself in where state and federal funds account for only 7% of school funding, with local funding accounting for 93%. In the United States federal and state funds account for 57% of school funding and local 43%. Newton and a number of other suburban communities around the Rte. 128 belt are different even among other communities in Massachusetts, which ranks somewhere between the mid-30s to mid-40s in revenue coming from the states for K-12 education. However, it also ranks very high on the per pupil expenditures, so there are a lot of resources being expended from local communities. One of the things that makes Massachusetts, along with Connecticut, New York and New Jersey different in this area is the high cost of living and competitive salaries. She then talked about the past several years, where the economic downturn has resulted in increasing cuts in Chapter 70 funds, which were level-funded in FY03, cut in FY04, level-funded in FY05, and proposed to be level-funded in the Governor’s FY06 budget. During this timeframe there were pressures from many elements, i.e., salaries/contracts, health insurance, utility increases, and changing populations in special education (SPED) requiring more intensive services. The costs associated with educating students increase, but the resources do not. While state and federal funding is not a huge percentage of their budget, it is a very critical piece. They have been extremely grateful for the Circuit Breaker legislation, which has provided some relief, by reimbursing communities for children with special needs who are particularly expensive to educate.

Jeff Young thanked Ms. Larner for her excellent introduction and overview of the financial issues facing Newton. He will now talk about how this situation has played out in the school system locally in Newton over the past few years with regard to the standards of excellence which were identified during the time of the override several years ago. Six major areas were chosen in which they wanted to achieve a certain threshold in order to improve the quality of education for Newton’s students.

The first area was around class size, in which their goal was to keep the average class size around 20 and attempt to have no classes over 24 at the elementary level. In the middle schools they were aiming to have team sizes of 88, which translates to class sizes of approximately 22 in the four major subjects. At the high schools, their goal was to reduce the number of classes with more than 25 students to approximately 15%.

The second standard dealt with programs that they identified as needing increased support, such as the literacy initiative, professional development, and world language.

The third area was technology, in which they wanted to be sure that they were up to par with the State standards of 5:1 student/computer ratio and to have the infrastructure and support necessary to run the system efficiently and effectively. In addition, staff must be trained to use the technology and the libraries should be fully automated.

The fourth standard had to do with the need for supplies and materials, particularly textbooks, in order to catch up to standards in comparable communities.

The fifth goal was around building maintenance and repair, in which they should be expending 2% of the previous year’s operating budget. There are 22 buildings that require a lot of support to be maintained, repaired, and cleaned.

The final standard addressed support staff and the necessity to have sufficient numbers to assist teachers in their daily work.

The fiscal situation they have faced since the infusion of funding from the override has forced them to retreat and lose pace in these areas.

At this point the Chairperson opened the floor to the Committee for questions or comments they might have for the legislators.

Mayor Cohen noted that tonight’s discussion is like “preaching to the choir” because Newton’s legislators have done an extraordinary job of garnering local aid for this community and being supportive advocates. He asked if they could share any knowledge they might have about additional funding in areas such as Chapter 70, METCO, transportation, Circuit Breaker, or lottery money.

Representative Kay Kahn thanked the Committee for the opportunity to attend tonight’s meeting to discuss these important issues. She raised her children in this community and her grandchildren are now entering the Newton Public Schools, so she is extremely committed to doing as best she can for this City. Clearly the Governor’s budget is not adequate in terms of Chapter 70 aid and she hopes to lobby to increase that amount. However, the larger issue has to do with limited funds in general. The Governor remains interested in lowering the tax rate, which is not going to help fund education.

Senator Cynthia Creem also has put her children through this school system and her grandson will be entering this year. She had requested a position on the education committee but was not asked to serve. However, she remains committed to this subject matter. The limited money that Representative Kahn spoke of is a real issue. The Senate attempted to change the method of funding last year so that Newton would have received more money and this same proposal is coming from the Chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee this year. There are other communities in similar situations that are dependent on property taxes and not getting the State aid they need. While she has signed onto this bill, it remains unclear if it will materialize. Last year METCO funding was increased and she is hoping the same will occur again. Her number one priority is Chapter 70 funding, but it remains to be seen whether the other senators have similar viewpoints. In terms of SPED, she has signed onto bills that would provide additional funding for children on the autism spectrum. She has also been active around the appeals process for the waiver of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to make it easier for children with special needs and she supports a system of multiple assessments vs. one test. Numerous attempts to get these children to pass the exam is a very costly process.

Representative Peter Koutoujian noted that the State’s projected structural deficit for ’05 is $650 million dollars and ’06 is $910 million. The three primary funding sources of the budget are health care (32%), local aid and education (21%), and human services (18%). This delegation was able to save Newton a great deal of money with regard to the Newton North High School project as a result of reviewing some language changes that were missed by the State in the School Building Assistance Program (SBAP). He is working on the Circuit Breaker legislation as well because communities need relief from the increasing high costs of SPED. With the new leadership in the House, it is difficult to get a feel for where the budget is heading because there is no prior history. He certainly hopes what comes out of the House is significantly better than the Governor’s budget and, if it is not, this delegation will work hard to advocate for Newton’s needs, particularly with regard to education.

Representative Ruth Balser talked about the budget process to date. They have been meeting with the Chairman of the Ways & Means to outline their priorities, which are local aid and education. It is important to keep in mind that during the 1990s they were experiencing the largest economic boom in the history of the nation and revenue was rolling into the coffers. This coincided with the Time & Learning legislation that required the State to equalize its commitment to education to all communities, pouring billions of dollars into cities and towns. It was not that they felt they had completed the job, but rather that the recession hit and the funding was no longer there. During this time they took a “Band-Aid” approach through stopping the rollback of taxes, freezing tax deductions, increasing the tobacco tax, and drawing on reserves. They were pummeled in the media for these decisions, but the cuts would have been far deeper had they not taken these actions. While the economy appears to be improving, it is important to remember that this does not mean they have a surplus, but rather that the deficit will not be as great. The House remains committed to the METCO program, as it has in years past, and she believes there maybe a slight increase for transportation. She is less optimistic than her colleagues about increased state aid, particularly given the desire to correct the structural deficit by not using one time revenues as they did last year. While she plans to file an amendment to raise the income tax, she does not expect it to pass. Many of her colleagues are working to revive the Governor’s package of closing corporate loopholes, which he backed off of after taking heat from the business community and they will be opposing his proposed tax cut. Finally, she has been working with the Mayor around legislation that she has filed for her past three terms to allow municipalities to offer exemptions to low and moderate income seniors from any overrides of Proposition 2 1/2, which would eliminate some tension around override attempts and make hem easier to pass.

Susie Heyman asked about citizen input in this process.

Cynthia Creem stated that they always welcome and encourage people to contact them about these issues and rallies are also important ways to express public opinion.

Kay Kahn stated that after the budget has been released Wednesday and they begin their amendment process, it will be helpful to have people supporting their efforts. She also encouraged people to contact the Governor’s office.

Ruth Balser stated that if the House Ways & Means proposal does not include the original proposal by the Governor to close the corporate loopholes, an amendment will be made to bring that back to the floor. People can advocate for this move because it will return approximately $80 million dollars.

Cynthia Creem reminded people that unlike the federal government, the State has to present a balanced budget. The Governor has presented his, the House will be presenting on Wednesday, and that will be followed by the Senate’s in a few weeks – all of which will be different. The Conference Committee of the Senate and House then work out the differences and send the Governor a mutually agreed upon budget, which he then can approve or veto and the House and Senate in turn can override. So, this is an ongoing process and people need to continue to monitor it and keep informed. This community has been successful in the past in lobbying for its priorities and she urged them to continue this effort with the new leadership.

Dori Zaleznik summarized the questions posed by the public. Several people asked about State reimbursement for transportation costs, particularly around SPED, and if there is any potential for relief in this area.

Anne Larner noted that SPED transportation is not reimbursable as part of the Circuit Breaker legislation.

Cynthia Creem commented that many legislators are trying to get the various unfunded mandates funded, but it goes back to the issue of insufficient revenue. Funding one area completely means less money in another.

Ruth Balser commented that there is a relationship in Massachusetts between the State and its dependence on local property taxes. However, while the property tax may be more regressive than the income tax, it is important to remember that property taxes stay within the community, while the income tax funds schools throughout the state.

Anne Larner stated that because Massachusetts has a higher income tax, there should be a greater effort from the State to fund local aid.

Kay Kahn noted that the federal government continues to give states less money each year and that is not going to change given that billions of dollars that are going out of the country for the war effort. This is why the burden has come down on the shoulders of communities through property taxes.

Susie Heyman commented that they can forever discuss why communities are not getting sufficient funding. However, that does not change the fact that this is the way it is and they need to try to figure out a solution.

Cynthia Creem suggested that they may want to propose some changes to how education is funded, as well as how communities can get more revenue in general. The Mayor has been working with his colleagues through the Massachusetts Municipal Association for supplemental funding for snow and ice, as this was such a difficult winter. They also need to be thinking about ways to improve the State’s economy, such as the bill around stem cell research, which would encourage these businesses to locate to Massachusetts, as well as to consider raising taxes and increasing lottery opportunities. Education is not the only area that is hurting in these times. Housing and human services are other components in need of greater funding.

Ruth Balser encouraged the public to elect a Democratic Governor in the next election so that the Board of Education will change to one that is more committed to public education vs. privatization. The charter school movement is draining public dollars from public schools. To date Newton is fortunate that it has not occurred in this community to any great extent. In addition to the economy being a factor in lack of funding, there were 42 tax cuts that were passed in the 1990s and she is committed to retracting many of those so that communities have the money to pay for the services that the public cares about deeply. Finally, Proposition 2 ½ needs to be amended in order to be more flexible and she will continue to work on this effort. There are many like-minded colleagues facing the same situations in other communities and they are all working hard in these areas.

Kay Khan talked about reviewing other areas of the budget to see where money is being spent. One place where a great deal of funding is going is prison incarcerations. She would prefer to spend that on prison reform, which in the long run is going to cost taxpayers less because there will be less recidivism. This money could then be used for public education and other needed services, such as the health department. One area she is committed to is seeing that all schools have full time nurses.

Cynthia Creem mentioned that Senate Bill #345 was filed last year and is up for another attempt to change how Chapter 70 funds are implemented, which would increase aid to Newton by over $1 million dollars and all districts would see aid grow by at least $50 per student. She is also supporting the State Education Standards bill which addresses meeting educational standards and appropriate funding. She has introduced another bill which would establish a grant program for the development and upgrading of school curriculum, as well as one to increase parental involvement in education. Finally she has co-sponsored a bill to establish a commission to work on statewide standards for school security.

Peter Koutoujian presented a hard copy of the issues he is working on around education, so that people can review that at their leisure.

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no members of the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES’ DISCUSSION

None.

RECOGNITIONS

Jeff Young mentioned that today at Lincoln-Eliot Elementary School they celebrated 40 years of Title 1, a federal program to support reading instruction, particularly in less affluent areas of the United States. Six schools in Newton qualify for the program and he thanked Robin Norman, Assistant to the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services, for her leadership in this program, as well as Margerie Daniels, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services, and Susan Linn, Grants Manager, for their work in this area.

APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

MOTION: It was moved to approve the School Committee

meeting minutes of 1/24/05.

(Zaleznik – Heyman)

unanimous

REPORTS

UPDATE ON SMALLER LEARNING COMMUNITIES (SLC)

Judith Malone Neville, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, introduced members of the panel that are present this evening to talk about their work in this area and answer any questions that Committee members might pose. Last month several of them traveled to Atlanta and had the opportunity to hear from other systems that are working on these programs. This is their first year of implementation in terms of staff training around Critical Friends Groups (CFG).

Michael Welch, Principal of Newton South High School, talked about the $100,000 planning grant received two years ago that allowed them to interview faculty for ideas, review needs, and formulate a plan, so that this whole notion is embraced from the bottom up vs. top down. One thing they learned in Atlanta is that this work is hard and time-consuming, but if done well can be very effective. Many of the systems working on these programs have extended their grant to a four-year format because they found that the best approach was evolutionary vs. revolutionary. The concepts have to grow within the district and patience is key.

Annie Leonard, Cochairperson of the SLC Committee, talked about the commitment of time staff have given at faculty meetings at their school to build support for this program and in getting people actively involved in the effort. At a meeting earlier this month they broke into sessions on the three main areas of the grant initiative in which they are current piloting – advisory program, ninth-grade teacher cluster, and CFG. In May they will focus on upper grade interdisciplinary SLC.

Jessica Engel, member of the SLC advisory group, stated that being a part of this program has been one of the best experiences she has had in the past five years teaching at Newton South. Members meet one block a week with 10-15 freshmen and have an opportunity to connect, gain their trust, and create activities that allow them to get to know the school better. This is an opportunity to separate from teaching, learning, grading, and preparing for the future and to just have a chance to breathe and unwind. Students have told her that they feel like it is the only time they can be off guard and have fun. While there is a purpose to their work, it is not a set agenda, so it is an opportunity for exploration.

Deb Holman, Cochairperson of the SLC Committee, spoke about the CFG, which are small groups of teachers that meet on a regular basis. Six coaches were trained last summer and another six in January and these people will be leaders of future groups. The groups consist of 12-15 staff members, representing various departments. Discussions are structured around student work, which allows for reflection on teaching and counseling practices. People have been extremely enthusiastic about these cross-disciplinary opportunities.

Lisa Faden was one of the six faculty members trained as a coach for the CFG. Their discussions center around student work, teacher assignments, and the issues educators face on a daily basis. Their goal is to make the teaching practice transparent and to hold it up for critical scrutiny by other educators. An example is a science teacher bringing in samples of student products from an assignment that did not go the way it was anticipated and the group would spend the hour examining the work and helping the teacher to improve the assignment. The sessions are structured and supportive and teachers are willing to open up their practice to this scrutiny because of the high quality feedback from trusted peers. This also builds understanding across departments and everyone shares in owning the issues presented. It opens a window upon the classrooms that had previously been missing and staff are very grateful.

Jennifer Huntington, Principal of Newton North High School, noted that one of the most exciting things about this work is that each high school has been able to model its own program and pilot ones that fit within each community. They plan to be working on some ninth-grade clusters next year and are very excited about the opportunities.

Mike Welch feels that one of the most important things in this work is the creation of a culture of professional collaboration. This allows for discussion about the craft of teaching in non-judgmental ways and opens up classrooms for peer vs. supervisory evaluation.

Gail Glick asked how members are chosen for these groups and how the work impacts their daily activities.

Deb Holman replied that all staff are invited to join and participation is voluntary and based on availability during free blocks.

Marc Laredo asked if they could envision what SLC will look like in several years and whether this will require funding from the school budget in order to sustain the programs, which are currently being funded by grant money.

Mike Welch admitted that it is difficult to predict what the future will look like, but they anticipate good connections being established so that students feel they have a niche in the school and a close relationship with an adult. He envisions a ninth-grade experience characterized by a team of teachers that collaborate around individual students and the students having an advisory relationship with an adult. This of course will mean providing staff time to collaborate, whether that be through the scheduling process or a function of providing specific time for this work. In terms of resources, he believes the time aspect is paramount and will be their greatest challenge. Down the line they will also be looking at SLC for the upper grades, which will play out in a very different approach. However, like the current work, it will develop directly from the teaching staff.

Marc Laredo cautioned that they need to think about the issue of sustainability. These are very exciting opportunities and he would not want to see them go by the wayside because of lack of funding.

Jeff Young agreed that this is an important thing to keep in mind. When they began these discussions a few years ago, it was thought that they would need approximately $100,000 a year in terms of leadership and support once grant funding was exhausted, which is quite minimal in the overall scheme. However, ongoing training will be necessary and it is important to keep that in mind given that they have made some serious reductions in the professional development area.

Jennifer Huntington commented that they have a fabulous opportunity to think about ways that SLC can impact physical space as they work toward designing a new high school. There are some opportunities for non-traditional and creative concepts to work on with the architects.

Nancy Levine asked about the makeup of the groups in terms of experienced vs. less experienced staff.

Deb Holman replied that the groups seem to have naturally fallen into a mixture of seasoned and new staff.

Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction, noted that 25 teachers and administrators have been trained. The ability to structure conversations about students’ work with colleagues is very powerful and people are experiencing great success.

Reenie Murphy noted that the high schools began this project at the same time but Newton South seems to be implementing the program faster.

Mike Welch stated that the schools were in different places in terms of where they were with various aspects of the plan. The CFG actually accelerated faster at North, while South was ahead with the advisories. Both schools are feeding off the learning experiences of the other. The grant was written intentionally knowing that there were strengths in different areas at each school. He commented on the protocols that are part of the program in which all are included and everyone has a voice. This is why the training of the coaches is critical because they make sure the protocols are being followed.

Nancy Levine asked how the budget cuts in curriculum & instruction will impact their work in this area.

Jeff Young stated that while it is difficult to know explicitly how this will play out, it will most likely curtail extending the training beyond the high schools.

SUPERINTENDENT’S PERSONNEL REPORT

There were no questions on the report.

NEWTON NORTH HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT UPDATE

Nick Parnell, Building Commissioner, announced that next Thursday the Design Selection Committee will meet to review the Request for Quotation (RFQ). He talked about the new legislation and the changes it has brought to the process, which now allows communities to pre-qualify not only the general contractor, but the sub-trades as well. There is a lot of new information in the legislation that is going to be beneficial and they are studying it carefully in order to construct the best possible high school for Newton. The construction manager provides leadership, administration, and management with defined scope of services and supports the project through the various stages. In the past, the construction manager was not on board during the planning of the design phase, which was problematic. Since they are now available from the beginning and throughout the process working with the architect in developing and coordinator the plans, they are ahead of the game by the time the building project commences.

Dori Zaleznik noted that two potential advantages of the new legislation are that it allows public buildings to be treated more like private contracting and they are no longer at the whim of the lowest bidder. This way they can select from qualified firms, especially in the subcontracting area, and have more control as the owner of the project. In addition, she has heard that more contractors would be enticed to bid under the new system.

Nick Parnell agreed with Dori’s observations.

Dori Zaleznik added that the one downside is that this is all new ground they are treading, so in some respects it is experimental.

Nick Parnell stated that it cannot be worse than the old system, in which the bidding process was so complex and basically luck of the draw. In addition, they have had legal advice from the Law Department throughout this process around the way contracts will be structured under the new system, so he does not feel there are many downsides.

Anne Larner asked Mr. Parnell to forward his PowerPoint presentation to the Committee so that they can reference it for the future.

OPERATIONS STATUS REPORT

Jeff Young highlighted some of the major items in the report, such as the custodial staff preparing for spring break cleanup and completion of the refinishing of the gym floors.

FY05 BUDGET UPDATE

Jeff Young noted that this month’s report reflects a positive balance of $5,000, which represents a change from last month’s significant deficit. Four steps were taken to address that issue without having to institute a spending freeze: grant funding for instructional materials, reduction in the unemployment forecast, savings in the SPED out-of-district tuitions as a result of bringing more students back into the system, and a reduction in equipment expenses.

Reenie Murphy commented on the $10,000 increase in the SPED tuition.

Sandy Guryan stated that this increase has to do with transportation requirements for four individual students.

Anne Larner commented that this clearly speaks to the need for this to be part of the Circuit Breaker funding for reimbursement to communities.

Jeff Young agreed and added that it is also an indication of the volatility of this account.

Margie Daniels noted that there can be a variety of situations which can impact SPED transportation costs and not tuitions.

Marc Laredo asked if the unemployment reduction might be a precursor to what they can expect next year.

Sandy Guryan stated that they will be reviewing this area and will submit the most up-to-date projection at the 5/23 School Committee meeting.

SPECIAL EDUCATION UPDATE

Reenie Murphy asked if they could address the notion of building capacity within the system.

Margie Daniels explained that they are constantly looking for both commonalties of disabilities and intensity of need for services. If they find three students with similar needs, it is usually less expensive to build a program in-district vs. sending them out to private placements, so when this number is triggered they review the services.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Susie Heyman admitted that this is one of their most frustrating annual discussions because they are never able to make much headway through the list of priorities. Given the amount of funding that had to be spent on snow plowing, this was a particularly difficult year in which the schools received very little funding for the buildings. She asked about the status of the windows for Peirce Elementary School.

Michael Cronin, Chief of Operations, stated that the Board of Aldermen approved the School Committee request last year for $300,000 for the design fee for this project. Unfortunately, the bid for the services came back at double the amount and the money was simply not available to move forward. Each year priorities shift on the list because of emergency situations and, as indicated in the material in tonight’s packet, there are three buildings in need of boilers.

Anne Larner noted that if they were able to address the first six items on the list, this would have a positive impact on utility costs.

Marc Laredo asked if there had been any discussion with utility companies regarding assistance in funding replacement equipment.

Mike Cronin stated that there are programs available that they are exploring to help implement energy management systems. The utility companies will pay for the installation costs to manage the new system, but the City must first purchase the equipment.

Marc Laredo asked if there had been any discussions with other commercial property managers as to how they are dealing with these issues.

Mike Cronin responded that real estate in the private sector is very different than that in the public realm. They have talked with other communities and found that some use different funding structures. He has some real concerns about the heating issues if the boilers in the two schools that are only operating on one unit malfunction.

Anne Larner commented that financing in this area is totally unpredictable from year to year and they need to have discussions with the Mayor’s office to see if they can explore different methods of funding.

Marc Laredo concurred and noted that this is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

ACTION ITEMS

VOTE TO APPROVE GRANTS

MOTION: It was moved to accept the two grants totaling

$54,989, as outlined in the 4/6/05 memorandum.

Discussion:

Dori Zaleznik wondered if the Secondary School Reading Program grant will supplement the cut that was made in the literacy specialists at the middle schools.

Jeff Young indicated that it would mitigate some of the impact of the cuts, but it is not a substitute.

(Heyman – Zaleznik)

unanimous

COMMUNICATIONS

None.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ezra Abrams, Peirce parent, suggested investigating the possibility of exploring the legalities around a private loan for building infrastructure, such as replacement of boilers, as there are many parents in their community who would be willing to offer such a funding mechanism. There has been a lot of talk in the community about the City’s inability to manage the construction processes and building maintenance. The current high school is a relatively new building and yet non-functional and the public input and communication process regarding the new high school was a public relations disaster. He hopes they will consider this as they move forward.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.