MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 25, 2005
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
OPEN SESSION
MOTION: At 6:15 p.m.,
it was moved, by roll call vote, to convene in
executive
session for the purpose of hearing a grievance.
If
passed, the Committee will reconvene in open session
at
7:30 p.m.
(Heyman - Levine)
unanimous
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” (
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Anne Larner
called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Janet Goldenberg,
previous member of the Progress Report Committee, presented to that Committee a
letter of concern signed by 123
Kathy Houston-Read, previous member of the
Progress Report Committee, supported the previous speaker’s comments. Unfortunately the report is used by some
teachers strictly to define their curriculum and others are finding it is
becoming an obstacle to their implementation of innovative work. The document makes teachers focus on
assessment rather than teaching or lulls them into lack of motivation to
develop challenging and inspiring materials.
Certainly there is a role for standards in
Patty McNamara, Angier
and
David Lerner, member of
the Progress Report Committee, commented that the problem with the current draft
of the progress report is that it does not result in a consensus of either
parents or teachers. This process needs
to be transparent so that there is trust in the outcome. Parents, as the consumers of this material,
need to find it meaningful. He urged the
School Committee to provide the necessary oversight for this to occur.
None.
None.
MOTION: It was moved to approve the regular
and
executive session meeting minutes
of 2/14/05
and special meeting of 3/4/05.
(Levine-
Zaleznik)
unanimous
Anne Larner stated that
the Mayor needs to attend another City meeting and, therefore, the Committee
will first take up the vote on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
ACTION ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/VOTE ON CIP
Mayor
Cohen noted that it has long been apparent that relying on free cash as the
sole source of capital outlay was too uncertain a process. The bonding/ capital expenditure plan for the
two high schools incorporated enough reserve to do additional work on other
municipal buildings that has been needed for quite some time. The original timetable called for $3.5
million to be made available in February and they have been reviewing this to
see if there might be a way to accelerate this schedule given the serious
situation of some schools operating on one boiler with no backup. They feel that they can advance $1.1 million
of these funds prior to February. If the
Committee deems that the boilers are priority, he will request an appropriation
from the Board of Aldermen from the capital stabilization fund for the design of
these projects, as well as bonding authority to advance the $1.1 million to the
beginning of the summer, which will address the first five items of the CIP.
Anne
Larner thanked the Mayor for his willingness to be flexible in this regard. At this point, she would like to hear from
the Committee about their feelings around how the list is prioritized.
Marc
Laredo also thanked the Mayor for this innovative approach because the issue of
the possibility of boilers malfunctioning without backups was tremendously
troubling. He asked if by not doing the
exterior masonry scheduled for two buildings they will run the risk of having
to do more costly repairs later.
Michael
Cronin, Chief of Operations, replied that if additional funding became
available he would put these back on the list as priorities, but believes they
can wait another year.
Anne
Larner commented that some of the smaller items that may not be eligible for
bonding may have to come out of charter maintenance.
Jeff
Young outlined the items for members of the public who do not have the
information at hand. There are 11 projects
listed in priority order beginning with boilers for Bowen, Burr and Ward
Elementary Schools, roofing at Countryside Elementary School, windows at Peirce
Elementary School, energy efficient lighting districtwide, telecommunications
infrastructure for all buildings, telephone system for the middle schools,
generators at Lincoln-Eliot and Peirce Elementary Schools, exterior masonry at
Underwood Elementary School and the Education Center, and bathrooms and
plumbing at Angier, Ward, and Zervas Elementary Schools, as well as Brown and Day Middle Schools.
Susie
Heyman asked if they are confident that the amount of funding being requested
will be sufficient.
Mike
Cronin responded that they double-checked their figures on the first six items
with the Public Buildings Department.
The dollar amount for the boilers represents actual prices they have
recently paid on boilers for other buildings.
The roofing amount was from a quote received from a vendor and the quote
for Pierce windows was fairly recent, so they are confident in these numbers.
Susie
Heyman asked if there are any contingency plans for insulation work that might
help Mason-Rice and
Mike
Cronin explained that there are not a whole lot of low-cost options because the
Fire Department does not allow them to hang plastic sheets on the windows and
they have re-caulked the windows several times.
Dori
Zaleznik asked if it were worthwhile to spend money on fixing the roof on the
modular at Countryside, given the age of the structure.
Mike
Cronin stated that this structure is made with bricks and mortar and has a
foundation. While it may not be the most
aesthetically pleasing building, it was put in place as a permanent structure rather
than the type of modular that is in place at
Reenie
Murphy asked what was spent this year on CIP projects.
Mike
Cronin replied that all they were able to complete this year was $30,000 for
the architectural design for the Peirce windows.
Reenie
Murphy asked if the windows will be done over the summer.
Mike
Cronin does not believe so because it takes approximately 16 weeks to
manufacture the windows and they would not install them during the school year,
so they are looking at the following summer.
Nancy
Levine does not understand why the windows cannot be installed while school is
in session.
Mike
Cronin stated that in his conversation with the Building Commissioner and some architects,
concern was expressed about the possibility of asbestos based caulking and
roping on the old windows, so they would need to contain the area. As a precautionary measure they would not
want students in that type of environment.
Anne
Larner commented that there has been a change in the industry and a more
cautious awareness and different practices now in place with regard to asbestos. She also wanted to note that given the
numerous snags that have occurred with the window project, they need to be keep
a close eye on this process to be sure they will be installed in the summer of
’06.
Marc
Laredo suggested Mike keep the Committee updated on the status of the project
in his monthly reports.
Gail
Glick asked about the placement of the generators on the list.
Mike
Cronin stated that the two generators are currently operational and parts are
available if repairs are necessary.
However, they know that these units are nearing the end of their life
cycle and will need to be replaced in the next couple of years. While they are important, they are not
critical to the operation of a school such as a boiler or roof. If there were a power outage and they were to
fail, it would result in no back-up lights.
They can address this with manual portable lighting as a short-term
solution, so there is an emergency back-up plan in place.
MOTION: It was moved to approve the Proposed FY06
CIP, as
outlined in the 4/25/05 memorandum.
(Heyman
– Zaleznik)
unanimous
REPORTS
REPORT ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRESS REPORTS
Jeff
Young stated that the plan for tonight is to provide a brief overview of the
material in tonight’s packet and to open the discussion for comments and
questions with staff and parents who have served on the Progress Report
Committee. He reminded people that this
is a draft document in pilot form, which has been surveyed and the results of
that survey will now be taken into consideration to revise the document. As a previous speaker stated earlier this
evening, this needs to be an effective communication tool between the schools
and parents, as well as a user-friendly document for teachers to be able to
assess students’ progress. Apparently
the first iteration has not met the original goals. They have heard from people tonight about the
limitations of the document and will also hear from people who have had success
with this instrument, but obviously they are far from finished. The purpose of tonight’s discussion is to
take all of this feedback into consideration as they work to develop the next
version of the progress report that will meet the articulated goals.
Carolyn
Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction, began the
presentation by noting that the Progress Report Committee has existed for five
years and people have drifted on and off the Committee in that time
period. The work has been a response to
Education Reform, Curriculum Frameworks, MCAS, and the No Child Left Behind
legislation, which all seek consistency in the evaluation of student
performance and to connect the benchmarks to the work that is happening in the
classroom. Ultimately it needs to be a
good communication tool between school and home. An in-depth review was conducted of what
other communities are doing in this area and many have similar progress
reports, which are dense, standards-based documents. These communities are also
surveying for parent and teacher feedback and piloting similar programs as
Judith
Malone Neville, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, stated that they know they
are not where they want to be yet but have developed a good basic report. At the conference that staff attended two
years ago around this subject, the speaker, Thomas Guskey, explained that there
is no perfect reporting system and each district has to develop its own
document that meets the needs of its community.
She then introduced all the people in attendance this evening who have
worked on this project and who are available for questions.
Nancy
Levine is pleased that they are moving toward a more consistent approach
systemwide through a single tool, but does have some concerns about it, some of
which have already been raised. While
the data is useful, informative and necessary for the district level, it is
overwhelming for parents and if parents
are glazing over from reading one child’s report, imagine what a teacher is
facing having to report this much detail for every child in the classroom. She questioned the quality of the reporting
if there is so much data to input. Not
only is this physically tedious for teachers, but can also be physically
harmful in terms of ergonomics/repetitious movements of key-stroking. She would also like further information about
what is actually going to be on-line and how privacy issues will be addressed.
Dori
Zaleznik noted that 40% of the parents responded to the survey and 80% wrote
comments, which indicates that a majority do not think positively about the
progress reports. While people agree that standards and reporting on student
performance are important, it is obvious that this version does not work and
she would not want to see it replicated in June. This document is too complex to be useful for
parents or students.
Susie
Heyman admitted that the report drains the joy of learning that is so evident
as the Committee has been visiting schools this year and it is difficult for
parents to see their children’s progress or anything special about them in the
material. The good work they are doing
in the schools is not showing through in these reports. It has obviously failed as a communication
tool.
Patty
Kellogg expressed concern about parents’ comments that their voices were not
heard on the Progress Report Committee’s work and the short timeframe for
revisions to occur.
Marc
Laredo stated that parents are the consumers of this report and no matter what
the administration or School Committee might feel about it, if they are not
satisfied then it is unacceptable. He
also does not believe they should use this report in June. A standards based common report card makes
sense, but it has to be one that can be easily read. People crave narrative about their children. They want to know how they are doing both
academically and socially, their strengths and the areas in which they can
improve. He is troubled by the amount of
parent turnover on the Committee because that is a crucial component. He urged them to go back to the drawing board
and start over.
Reenie
Murphy commented that while the teachers seem more satisfied with this
document, obviously parents are not and she personally had to read her child’s
report several times in order to have it make sense and her daughter did not
understand what it said about her as a student.
The most important thing they can do is listen to what people are
saying.
Dori
Zaleznik commented that she did not get the same impression of the teacher
feedback as Reenie and felt there was dissatisfaction among staff as well on
parts of the document.
Anne
Larner noted that the primary role of a report card is communication between
the school system and parents. The only
people who can tell them whether or not this is working are the parents. They need to find a way to convey the
information in a way that meets that need while at the same time providing the
system with the necessary information it requires.
Carolyn
Wyatt noted that the progress report was meant as one part of a three-part
system that included parent/teacher conferences and samples of students’
work. For those parents who have
experienced the three-prong approach, the progress report proved to be much clearer
in terms of the discrete skills that were being reported. The audience for these reports was not
intended to include students as it was too detailed, although they may need to
strive more toward this given parental comments in this regard. The conferences were considered the
opportunity for children to hear from their teachers about their progress. Some of the criticism being expressed is duly
warranted but she reminded people that this is a pilot program and it has
always been their intent to make revisions to the document based on the
feedback received. It was clearly marked
as a draft because it is not a finished product. In terms of accessing the progress reports
electronically, the work will be done in-house at no extra cost to the
system. It would be a closed system with
a dedicated server. They have not
provided any specific information at this point because they are still working
on the details. Other districts are
doing this and they will come back with further information as they continue to
investigate the parameters, but no decision in this regard has yet been
made. In terms of parental involvement
on the Committee, this has been a five-year process and there understandably
has been turnover. They are thankful to
those who have remained committed to the process, as well as the members who have
joined more recently and who add their voices to the work.
Edward
Knopping, 1st grade teacher at Peirce, has served on the Progress
Report Committee since its inception and found it to be a very rewarding
experience. The group has worked
inclusively and collaboratively. Despite
people’s feelings about the direction of standards based education and the MCAS
exam, teachers are committed to making sure that children are successful,
prepared, and supportive in this high-stakes environment. They have begun to develop a common language,
where the curriculum is aligned with the Frameworks, and students are being
held accountable. There is a lot of work
involved in getting both teachers and parents familiar with the system, so
there is a learning curve and, as was previously stated, this is only in draft
form. Personally he felt these were the
best report cards he has worked with in his 15 years of teaching. Teachers know their children well enough that
it is not as time-consuming to complete the information as one might
think. While they are not yet there, he
believes they are on the right path and should not throw out this document.
Nancy
Swidler, 1st grade teacher at Angier, noted that standards have
always been in place, but have not been so intensive in the past as they are
now. Agreeably the progress reports need
revision. There are too many categories
on the current document, which makes it look like nothing more than data
collection, so she would advocate shortening the material. Standards are important, but she believes
they can narrow it down to 8-10 categories in priority order and would add mid-year
expectations for the January report.
Some areas can be combined, as there is currently duplication in the
material. Also, narrative is extremely
important, so there is work to do on content and format, but she believes it is
doable.
Cindy
Marchand, Principal of Franklin Elementary School, noted that consistency is a
main theme in this process. In the past
there was inconsistency across grades within a school, as well as among
different schools. Teachers had
different expectations about the definition of proficiency and this new
reporting system brings a sense of consistency to the discussion that has been
lacking. Staff are looking at student
work samples and coming to common agreement about what proficient means. The level of conversations among staff about
the teaching and learning process has been elevated to a level she has never
seen in the past and it is very exciting to observe. She agrees that there is a lot of work ahead
to make this a more user-friendly document for parents. They can simplify the language, reduce the
number of criteria, increase the narrative, and make the report more
understandable. There is a different
reason for each of the three-pronged approach that was previously
mentioned. The report card should be the
communication tool, with the conference being the piece to help students
understand and document their progress.
What they have attempted to do in the report is to be clear about the
criteria and let parents see the specific areas where their child can use help
but were probably too over zealous and added more than was necessary. They hope through the revision process to
make this clearer and produce that balance that was previously mentioned.
Eva
Thompson, Principal of Peirce, added that while the language may seem new to
some people, children are actually experiencing it in the classroom. They understand what it means to be
proficient and how to reach that goal and are trained to self-reflect on their
work and their own growth.
Allison
Mixter, 1st grade teacher at
Andrea
Downs, Angier parent and member of the Progress Report Committee, spoke of the
issues teachers had to deal with in doing these reports. The system consistently crashed, which is why
many did not ultimately include a great deal of narrative, so they were
frustrated and assumed they would do that during the parent conferences. She heard from a lot of parents that they
were never asked about their opinion of what should or should not be included
on these reports. There is also an
underlying sense that teachers cannot be trusted to teach to the curriculum and
she wanted to state that this is not the opinion of any parents she has spoken
to about this issue.
David
Lerner wants to be sure that they are not having this same discussion next
year, so the timeline is very important, as is the process of how parents’
voices will be heard.
Beth
Doran, Williams parent and member of the Progress Report Committee, commented
that the most refreshing thing about tonight’s discussion is that it is even
happening and people are feeling that they are being heard. While they may not have the time to change
this report for June because of technology issues, she wants to be assured that
a cover letter will accompany the progress report stating that it is in the
process of being revised.
Cindy
Marchand noted that some teachers have also asked that the report not be
changed in June because they have just gotten a handle on it and would prefer
to use the same report and make any necessary changes in the fall.
Beth
Doran agreed and mentioned that the contract negotiations may have also played
a part, so the pilot may not have been given a fair shot and she too would
prefer using the same document in June.
Teachers have told her that they need a consistent tool that will be in
place for a school year.
Nancy
Swidler wished to clarify that teachers were directed to write narratives but
if some were not as lengthy as they were in the past, it was because a
tremendous amount of time was spent on individual assessments, data collection,
and actually doing the reporting and the younger the grade level the more
individualized the report.
Marc
Laredo does not understand why they cannot revise the document by June, but the
focus now needs to be on moving forward. He suggested a few members of the
School Committee join the Progress Report Committee to provide some input.
Anne
Larner commented that this would be a complete change of direction in this area
and would be something that would require further discussion among School
Committee members.
Susie
Heyman stated that this is not a School Committee initiative and it is her
belief that their role should be to act as the body that sets the policy that
this should be a communication tool and then hold the administration accountable
to that directive. She does not feel it
would be productive to add the School Committee into the mix. The Progress Report Committee is obviously
committed to moving forward to making this a workable document.
Dori
Zaleznik does not want to make light of the work that people have put into this
report. Obviously a lot of positive
factors have come out of this including teachers having standard language to
help them in their evaluation of students.
However, she does not feel they should use this same tool in June, when
the voices of parents has been loud and clear that it is not helping them
understand their child’s progress. June
teacher/parent conferences are voluntary and frankly not all that productive
and she worries that many parents will not know what their children have
accomplished this year if they continue to use the current progress
report. She suggested that at the least
they pull out some material, shorten the report for June, and add more
narrative.
Reenie
Murphy would also like to see the report shortened for the June marking period
and wants the document to continue to be in draft form in the fall so that
people can view the revisions and continue to provide feedback until it becomes
something they can all agree upon.
Jeff
Young suggested that the Committee let him reflect upon tonight’s discussion
and have some conversations with the members of the Progress Report Committee
and then report back to the Committee at the next meeting.
UTILITIES UPDATE
Mike
Cronin noted that this update focuses on an analysis of the electricity costs
for the summer months at Day, Newton North, and Newton South. Newton North will require some additional
analysis because of the complexity of the building and the equipment. The cost to run the air-conditioning at Newton
South at 72 degrees, which is the target comfort temperature, is $8,000 a
month. The field house space, in
particular, can be run without air-conditioning without doing any harm,
although it would not be comfortable.
There are some requests from Park & Recreation and some summer camps
to utilize this space. He does not
believe the fact that it is air-conditioned was the sole reason for their choice,
but rather that it is a new building.
Patty
Kellogg asked if they can program the system to be on only during periods when
the building is in use.
Mike
Cronin replied in the affirmative but noted that any time the air-conditioning
is on for more than 15 minutes during peak times, the utility company
automatically raises them to a higher cost category.
Patty
Kellogg commented that while this may be true, they would still realize a
savings if it were not on all the time.
Mike
Cronin believes that the savings would be marginal, as all the other
electricity charges associated with that space aside from the air-conditioning
would also be at the higher threshold.
Patty
Kellogg asked if they run the risk of losing renters by adding an additional
fee at this point.
Mike
Cronin stated that they have not had the opportunity to discuss this yet with
the users.
Reenie
Murphy stated that this could impact the tuition rates the camps charge
parents, so this is important information to have prior to making any
decisions.
Anne
Larner noted that the Space Camp at Day is in a different situation because
those fees have already been set, but that is not true of the space at Newton
South. The Committee was very clear in
its vote several months ago that a charge for air-conditioning in the new space
was a possibility and that this be conveyed to any possible users.
Mike
Cronin stated that this was understood and they have not yet approved any
summer permits.
Marc
Laredo does not understand the rationale behind the 15 minute threshold.
Mike
Cronin explained that the total electrical charges at South last summer were
$47,000. By shutting off the air-conditioning,
they could save $16,000, but will still have to run lights and other electrical
output. The upper threshold may not
be
reached until they turn on all the compressors for the air-conditioning. The 15 minutes threshold during peak demand
time is N-Star’s definition of when they move a customer to the upper bracket.
Dori
Zaleznik wondered about cooling the space during off-peak hours.
Mike
Cronin stated that they have actually discussed this, but do not have a
sufficient understanding of daily usage in terms of doors being opened, number
of users, and the activities that will occur in a given space, so they would
have to do a few trial runs to see if this would work. The library uses a similar system in which
they make ice in a vault underground at night and run the air across that
during the course of the day to cool the building.
Marc
Laredo feels that these are interesting options to explore.
Mike
Cronin suggested they allow him to talk with the users of the space, who may
decide they do not need air-conditioning for their purposes. In terms of Day, the cost savings for not
air-conditioning would be $6,200. He
would not recommend adding a charge this year, as this has been a long-standing
program in the building. However, he
would suggest attempting to run the air-conditioning in the evening, as that is
a fairly closed school, to see if they can provide a comfortable atmosphere
while at the same time savings the system on electrical costs. It would, be an experiment worth trying at least
to determine how to proceed next year and they can always turn the
air-conditioning on if it is proving to be too uncomfortable.
Reenie
Murphy asked about consolidating users into fewer buildings.
Mike
Cronin stated that they attempt to do this wherever possible, but in many cases
people have a specific reason for wanting to utilize a particular space, i.e.,
location or specifics having to do with the space.
Anne
Larner commented that she was pleased to see that they will be working with the
Newton Citizens Commission on Energy to have N-Star and Keyspan conduct a
technical energy audit of the buildings, particularly Day.
Mike
Cronin commented that the contributions from the utility companies will cut this
cost in half so it will pay itself back very quickly.
Patty
Kellogg would like to see further review of the cost per kilowatt hour to use
the air-conditioning at South because she still feels a savings can be had if
they only use it for the time users are in the building.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
FY06 BUDGET PLANNING
Anne
Larner announced that the Committee will be scheduling an early June special
meeting to finalize the budget, as by that point they hope to have more
information around state resources. They
also need to discuss a minimum allocation of staffing so that the schools can
do some planning. At the last meeting,
there was a consensus that people were comfortable with reserving approximately
16 positions for this purpose. She also
mentioned that there will be a statewide rally on May 10th at the
State House for advocating for school funding.
The PTO is working on getting the word out to the community and she
encouraged people to attend.
Jeff
Young suggested that tonight the Committee release four FTEs to be split
between the high schools, in which they will work out the specific proportions
with the principals, as well as four for the elementary schools without
specifying specific buildings at this time.
Marc
Laredo is comfortable taking this first step but wanted people to understand
that they cannot release further staffing until they have a better
understanding of the budget gap and any possible additional savings they can
find in other areas. However, this shows
their commitment to restoring teaching positions.
MOTION: It was moved to restore 4.0 FTEs to the elementary
schools and 4.0 FTEs to the secondary schools.
(Heyman
– Zaleznik)
unanimous
VOTE ON LAST DAY OF SCHOOL
MOTION: It
was moved to approve the last day of school for students as 6/24/05 (1/2 day)
and for teachers 6/27/05.
(Zaleznik
–
unanimous
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There
were no members of the public who wished to address the Committee at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.