MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 2005
PRESENT: Chairperson
Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Dori Zaleznik, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Patricia
Kellogg, Marc Laredo, Nancy Levine, Reenie Murphy, Superintendent Jeffrey
Young, Tim Smillie, student representative - Newton South High School
ABSENT: Mayor David Cohen, student representative –
CALL
TO ORDER
Chairperson
Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and noted that the Mayor
is absent as he is giving his State of the City address, which unfortunately
fell on the same evening as the School Committee meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Fred Gross, Newtonville,
addressed the school calendar.
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES’ DISCUSSION
Tim Smillie thanked the
administration for informing students about the commissioning process at the
school assembly, which also included discussion about the upcoming New England
Association of Schools & Colleges, Inc. (NEASC) accreditation process. The assembly was upbeat and festive and well
received by all. He also mentioned that
the heating issues in the building seem to be slightly better since his last
report. He then mentioned the situation
where the Westborough Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas is planning a protest of
the Laramie Project play being performed by Newton South’s theater program on
10/22. Students are outraged by the
maliciousness of the rhetoric from this group. The Principal informed him that the police
department advises against counter-protests because it would take away from the
meaningfulness of the play and put the attention on this group. However, there is probably going to be a
great deal of media attention and the school is abuzz about the situation. While he does not want to give this group any
incentive, perhaps some type of statement would be appropriate.
Anne Larner thanked Tim
for his comments and noted that the Superintendent alerted the Committee about
this situation, which is of great concern to all. The administration is working closely with
the police and others who have had experience with this group for advice.
RECOGNITIONS
None.
APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: It was moved to approve the School
Committee
special meeting minutes of 5/3/05,
executive
session meeting minutes of
6/27/05, and regular
meeting minutes of 9/12/05 and
9/26/05.
(Heyman
– Murphy)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
REPORTS
SUPERINTENDENT’S PERSONNEL REPORT
Nancy Levine noted a
decimal error in two Unit A full-time equivalences (FTEs). There were no other questions on the report.
STAFFING RECONCILIATION REPORT
Marc Laredo asked for a
comparison of the number of aides and inclusion facilitators in place at this
time compared to last year.
Sandra Guryan, Assistant
Superintendent for Business, Finance & Planning, stated that they are
fairly close to where they usually are at this time of year.
They have not yet
applied every FTE in these areas into the budget. Some of the vacancies are in motion to be
filled, while funding for another 8-9 are being held aside as more information
becomes available. These dollars may be
applied to either the aides/facilitators areas or out-of-district tuitions,
depending
upon the needs. They are working very hard to stay within the
plan that was put in place for this year after the cuts were made during budget
deliberations.
Dori Zaleznik noted that
they are down 1.5 teacher FTEs in the middle schools, which seems to have to do
with staff at Day having multiple assignments.
Sandy Guryan noted that
the negative signs in the report indicate that they have exceeded the budget,
so they are actually over by 1.5 FTEs and this includes some aide positions.
Paul Stein, Assistant
Superintendent for Human Resources, noted that this is because one of the 6th
grade teams at Day is now a three-person team, so staff are teaching one
subject area plus social studies.
Dori Zaleznik asked
about the increased FTEs for elementary art and music and wondered if that is a
reflection of more students than anticipated.
Sandy Guryan believes it
is a combination of where the population landed in various schools, which
relates to scheduling, and that they may not have reflected every 10th
of an FTE back in June until they determined where they were needed for the
appropriate number of classrooms.
Dori Zaleznik was only
expressing curiosity and noted that given the size and complexity of the budget
the projections are very close.
Reenie Murphy asked about student/teacher guidance ratios at the high schools.
Paul Stein noted that
there is an increase in this account, as a result of the shifting of a role in
the New Start program and their decision to charge that to the counselor vs.
teaching area, and another small piece having to do with individual leave
situations. This does not indicate
additional counseling in terms of reducing the caseload and, in fact, there are
fewer counselors.
Sandy Guryan noted that
because the budget was prepared in excruciating detail and then analyzed after
all the necessary hiring occurred, any discrepancy becomes very obvious
although they can explain each situation.
Susie Heyman echoed
Dori’s comments regarding the complexity of the budget and how close to target
they are in all areas. She requested
information with regard to the student/teacher guidance ratios for their Budget
Guidelines discussions.
FY06 BUDGET UPDATE
Jeff Young noted that
this is the first FY06 budget update of the year, which projects a small
positive balance. However, he expressed caution
regarding
the volatility of the
utilities area and in particular the anticipated increases in gas and oil
costs.
Marc Laredo noted that
the administration was very conservative in this area and it was the
Committee’s decision to take a risk. He
asked about the decreased funding of $90,000 in the grants area.
Sandy Guryan will
provide a more detailed report on the grants, but information continues to flow
in that there may be more funding than is reported in tonight’s material. However, there were areas such as the METCO
grant where they received additional funding, but not as much as they had
anticipated.
Marc Laredo asked if
these are funds that are out of their control in terms of the amount received.
Sandy Guryan replied
that this is correct, but it impacts on the way they make budget and personnel
decisions.
Reenie Murphy questioned
the $20,000 surplus under the repairs and maintenance area, with nothing
forecasted for its use for the rest of the year.
Sandy Guryan noted that
all of the budget transfers are not yet reflected, but she assured them that
all funding in maintenance areas will be spent.
She then noted that they have been working with the city and other
school districts
around participation in
collaborative bidding and the right time to lock in on utility rates. This forecast does not contain the ultimate
impact of the complexity of these areas.
OPERATIONS STATUS REPORT
Michael Cronin, Chief of
Operations, noted that PJ Kennedy is their new HVAC contractor. They are thorough and responsive and the
system is very happy to have them on board.
They did maintenance on the boilers this summer and slowly started them
up for the first time this week and there were only a couple of minor
issues. They have also done some pipe
work in the
Gail Glick asked about
custodial overtime.
Mike Cronin noted that
they are slightly down in this area than last year at this time, which is a
result of careful monitoring of the requests and a conscious
choice to lower their
cleaning expectations in the buildings.
There are also fewer custodians this year, so they do not have to cover
those vacations and absences.
Marc Laredo asked what
action they are taking to address issues related to increased utility costs.
Mike Cronin stated that
over the summer the school and city staff worked collaboratively around
identifying buildings with the most needs and then calibrated thermostats and
replaced valves in those facilities.
Marc Laredo would like
Mike to start thinking about ways in which they could
spend money in these
areas that would ultimately save them money in the long-
run.
Reenie Murphy requested
a list of the schools where this work occurred.
Patty Kellogg suggested using
a weather stripping team to address all buildings,
similar to the gym floor
cleaning team that did this work over the past summer.
Dori Zaleznik asked
about the status of the change in the Food Services area.
Mike Cronin noted that
the bid for Food Services is in the final stage and this item is docketed for a
discussion on the 11/28 School Committee agenda. They should have their first snapshot of how
the new program is doing at that time.
Dori Zaleznik asked if
they plan to continue to work with local farm groups.
Mike Cronin stated that
they have done this in a couple of schools in their spring and fall festivals. Marc Lidano, Director of Food Services, has
had some success in this area and will continue to explore these opportunities.
Jeff Young mentioned
that at the recent back-to-school night at Newton South a number of people commented
on the excellent signage in the building, which helped them find their way
around the school. They are also hoping
that the connector will be completed by the end of November.
Mike Cronin added that
the connector now has a roof and work is progressing.
Jeff Young noted that
they are accelerating and taking an aggressive approach to the first phase of
the
Anne Larner mentioned
the possibility of holding a special meeting on this matter if there happens to
be any significant changes.
Jeff Young noted that
they can adjust the schedule as needed.
They are trying to strike a balance between the desire for input and
dialogue, while at the same time moving the project forward.
Dori Zaleznik requested
that the educational consultant from the design team write a report based on
the two days of workshops held with staff and present that to the Committee
prior to any November meeting that may be held on this issue.
Jeff Young assured the
Committee that they will be kept in the loop.
Reenie Murphy mentioned
that the Newton North Neighborhood Association is meeting on 10/27, 7:00 p.m.,
SPECIAL EDUCATION UPDATE
Jeff Young mentioned
that they are two aides under budget at this point in time and they will
continue to monitor this closely, as the figures are likely to change as
students come and go.
Marc Laredo asked if
there are any concerns about the preschool enrollments.
Margerie Daniels,
Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services, sees two risk
areas in the preschool
around students on the autism spectrum and those with multiple
disabilities. In addition,
transportation is an area of concern given the anticipated increase in fuel costs. Out-of-district placements and contracted
services are also areas to watch carefully. The latter has a bulge at the elementary
and middle school levels, which they are reviewing on a case-by-case basis to
see if there are more cost-effective ways to provide services. While bringing students back from
out-of-district placements saves the system money, it also means that contracted
services increases because of the needs of these children.
Marc Laredo asked if
they are required to pay certain rates for contracted services.
Margie Daniels replied
that the rates are variable. In some
cases they are seeking specialized services, of which they do not have a great
amount of choices, particularly in dealing with students on the autism
spectrum.
Jeff Young asked if she
could provide some examples of what falls under contracted services.
Margie Daniels cited the
Reenie Murphy believes
that it is very important that the community understand the needs of these
students. The more detailed the
information they can provide the better they can educate everyone about what
public school systems are facing.
Margie Daniels
agreed. Modern technology is allowing
for the most premature of infants to survive, but this often carries with it
significant disabilities that require special services.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR
FACILITIES
Dori Zaleznik noted that
the revised edition of the RFP includes the suggestions Committee members made
at the previous meeting. While the
School Committee will not be the body conducting the evaluations of the firms,
the way the criteria is written is extremely important for this purpose. Once they have completed the RFP it will be
sent through the City’s Law Department to be certain that it is constructed to
meet all of their needs. The main focus
for the Committee should be on the background and study objectives. She does not
believe a funding source
has yet to be identified, but the Mayor is working on this aspect. She would be happy to take any comments.
Susie Heyman noted that
since the initial discussion of this item, they have broadened the scope to
include the middle schools,
Marc Laredo suggesting
adding more specifics around the exterior of the facilities, such as parking
lots, walkways, grading issues, etc.
Anne Larner mentioned
that Eric Olsen, School Committee representative on the Energy Commission,
offered the services of this body, as well as his own personal attention, in
any manner in which they/he can be helpful.
Patty Kellogg noted that
a few items that were suggested at the last meeting are not specifically listed
in the revised edition, such as central air, energy conservation retrofits, sprinkler
and security systems, and cafeterias.
Jeff Young presented
three options for next year’s calendar and mentioned that the drafts have been
presented to the Newton Teachers Association (NTA) for their review and
feedback. Option A is the most
traditional and calls for teachers to start on the day after Labor Day (9/5)
and students on 9/7. Assuming all five
snow days are used, the last day of school would be 6/26 and if no snow days
are used it would be 6/19. Option B has
the teachers returning prior to Labor Day (8/30 & 8/31) and students on
9/5. The final day of school given the
use of all five snow days would be 6/22 and with no snow days 6/15. Option C also brings the teachers back before
Labor Day (8/31 & 9/1) and students on 9/5.
The final day of school given the use of all five snow days would be
6/22 and with no snow days 6/15. The
difference between Option B and C is whether teachers would return on Wednesday
and Thursday, with Friday off, or Thursday and Friday.
Anne Larner asked if
they could get some information on when surrounding communities started school
this year, given that a previous speaker indicated that many started a week or
two before
Dori Zaleznik mentioned
that
Anne Larner mentioned
that they also have to be aware that there is contractual language around this
subject that has to be taken into consideration.
Marc Laredo mentioned
that this is a reoccurring conversation when Labor Day is late in a given
year. In the past they have voted not to
upset traditions of families around this holiday. However, there is currently a gap both at the
end of school and after Labor Day in terms of camps or other activities for
children, so he would prefer Option B or C and defer to the Superintendent and
teachers as to their preference.
Reenie Murphy commented
that the last few weeks of a late school year does not feel like much education
is occurring because of all the field trips and end of school activities. She has heard from teachers about the
pressure and anxiety they feel around trying to fulfill the curriculum needs
and the difficulty that poses late in the year.
She believes it is easier to jump start the year earlier and get more
work done at that time than in June.
Nancy Levine commented
that she has also heard that after the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS) exams are completed in May, it
is also difficult to
continue the intensity of the curriculum.
She agrees that the earlier they can wrap up the end of the school year
the better.
Gail Glick commented
that no matter when school ends there will always be the last week or so when
education winds down.
Anne Larner noted that
the one time that the system started before Labor Day, which included students,
many parents supported that decision, but
there was an equal
number who felt that it disrupted their schedules.
Anne Larner stated that
five firms responded to the RFP on the management studies that were written in
a manner that would allow for them to bid on one or both parts. Two firms bid on the study around the
management/administrative structure and three bid on both that and the
classification and compensation study for non-aligned personnel. The entire Committee read the proposals and a
subcommittee consisting of herself, Dori, and Reenie interviewed all five
groups and conducted reference checks on four of the five. One group was deemed to be non-responsive to
the RFP. The Superintendent participated
in all of the subcommittee meetings except one.
They discussed at length the proposals and interviews and evaluated each
group based on set criteria. On both
studies Berkshire Advisors, Gibson Consulting Group, and Human Resources
Services were rated highly advantageous.
Weston Management Consultants was rated advantageous. Both Human Resources Services and Weston
Management Consultants bid on both studies and Berkshire Advisors and Gibson
Consulting Group bid on only the management structure study. The following was the information received
upon opening the bids:
Ø
Berkshire
Advisors (management study) - $29,000
Ø
Gibson
Consulting Group (management study) - $31,490
Ø
Human
Resources Services (both studies) - $18,000 management study & $17,250
classification/compensation study or $32,500 if awarded both
Ø
Weston
Management – (both studies) - $23,000 management study & $23,000
classification/compensation study or $42,000 if awarded both
After additional discussions
following the opening of the bids and reviewing the materials again, the
subcommittee easily recommended Human Resources Services for the
classification/compensation study given their higher rating and lower bid.
A more in-depth
discussion occurred around the management study piece. There were three firms that were rated highly
advantageous and they discussed
whether cost should be
the only factor or if there were other things that were important to consider
and whether or not splitting the studies between two firms made more
sense. Gibson Consulting Group had more
experience in conducting studies of this nature in school systems and their
proposal and sample studies were a slight cut above the others. They have done studies of districts of
various sizes in different states. The
reference check from the State of
Dori Zaleznik views this
as an opportunity to get a range of opinions from two different groups, both of
which can bring a lot to the system.
Patty Kellogg likes the
idea of choosing the out-of-state firm because of the breadth of experience and
fresh set of eyes they can bring.
Susie Heyman thanked the
subcommittee for their hard work. Although
she was not involved in the discussions and reference checks, these were the
two companies that rose quickly in her mind as worth pursuing and she will
support this recommendation.
Nancy Levine is also
inclined to support the recommendation, but would like to know how the
administration feels about working with two consulting groups.
Jeff Young responded
that it may take more of their time, but if it produces the outcome that they
seek it will be a good investment. He
does not anticipate it being overly burdensome at this point.
Gail Glick also thanked
the subcommittee for what was obviously a great deal of work and they have made
a clear case for their recommendations.
MOTION: It was moved to approve the
recommendation of the Management/Compensation Subcommittee
to hire
Gibson
Consulting Group for the Management Structure study and Human Resources
Services for the Classification and Compensation study and to forward this
recommendation to the Chief Procurement Officer.
(Zaleznik
– Levine)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent: Mayor Cohen
APPOINTMENT OF BUDGET GUIDELINES SUBCOMMITTEE AND
INITIAL DISCUSSION OF FY07 BUDGET GUIDELINES
Anne Larner announced
that she has appointed Gail, Marc and Dori to the Budget Guidelines
Subcommittee and asked Gail to chair. She
also noted that the original schedule for discussions and a vote on this item
has been changed since the School Committee moved its 10/10 meeting to 10/17,
which does not give the subcommittee sufficient time to have a draft for next
week’s regular meeting. In addition, the
Superintendent will not be present for the 10/24 meeting, which is when the
original vote was scheduled to have been taken.
Tonight they will begin their initial conversation and the subcommittee
will return with a draft for the full Committee to discuss on 11/14. The final discussion and vote will take place
on 11/28. Finally, the Committee would
like to try to improve the discussion process and attempt to include the public
in some fashion that will allow for dialogue, while at the same time making
sure they can get the work done that is needed in a timely manner. There seems to be interest in having an
interactive meeting with
a facilitator and she proposed 11/9 as a possible date, with the location to be
determined.
Reenie Murphy is pleased
to see that they are considering this because there was so much contention
around last year’s budget process and this year is going to be another
difficult one. Public participation
early on would be welcome.
Dori Zaleznik
agreed. The Committee has heard a number
of times from the public about their frustration at only being able to comment
for a three minute period of time at regular meetings, with no feedback
allowed, and only one public hearing during the process, which is strictly a
one-sided conversation. Attempting to
have an exchange outside these confines and in a different location might be a
way to foster dialogue. However, they
need to be careful in regard to the parameters of the process. While they always need to hear about how budget
decisions impact specific programs or schools, their attempt here is to
consider the bigger picture, mutual goals and the balance of competing
needs.
Anne Larner suggested
that Susie and Reenie, who are overseeing the public engagement goal of the
Committee, draft something to be advertised to the schools and on the website.
Marc Laredo is pleased
to see that they are trying an innovative approach. Even if it is not successful, it will be a
new attempt and they can try something different next year. He would like them to also emphasize that
this is not to discourage people from participating in the traditional manner through
correspondence, email, telephone, and the regular time set aside at meetings
for public comment,
because all of this
feedback will be helpful. The more
communication the better.
Gail Glick supports this
idea because it provides an opportunity to actually talk about the broader
issues.
Susie Heyman noted that
the Committee feels the same level of frustration in not being able to respond
to the public in the current format and this experiment is well worth trying.
Dori Zaleznik cautioned
that they also do not want to set up false expectations. This process does not mean that the Committee
is going to follow a course of action that may be espoused by a majority of
speakers. There might be issues that
look great on the surface, but that only the administration and the professionals
know the ramifications. It will be the
responsibility of the School Committee to weigh all the needs and determine
what will best forward the goals of the system as a whole.
Gail Glick began the
discussion of the Budget Guidelines by commenting that they should first talk
about process and format for developing the guidelines. She would like to hear feedback about whether
people want to follow the same model they have used in previous years or if there
is interest in doing something different.
Things to think about are whether they are interested in specifics or more
broad recommendations and whether or not they want to set priorities or ranking
of items.
Susie Heyman noted that
there is a lot of information that will be needed going into this round of
discussions. They have just commissioned
two management studies and there is less clarity this year about State
funding. She believes the process has to
allow for gaps that will be filled in as more information is forthcoming.
Reenie Murphy feels that
their hesitation to prioritize items made the process more difficult last year and
was the cause of some of the frustration among the public. She would suggest they rank at least the top
three items.
Anne
Larner believes that they need to discuss a bottom line for the Superintendent
to aim for early in January. She agrees
that they need more information in order to do that, but waiting much longer
after that leaves the administration in a difficult position. In terms of ranking, this becomes more
difficult in successive years of constraints because the issue becomes balance
and protection of the system long-range.
It is problematic to have a discussion around ranking items when they
cannot understand the implication of those decisions because of not knowing the
financial constraint. Setting priorities
and values without this information may not work, but it is something they need
to wrestle with through this process.
Marc Laredo feels the
need to prioritize. Putting out a wish
list does a disservice to everyone because they cannot have everything within the
finite resources available. Once
priorities are set they can indicate where they would add back if additional
funds were to become available or where they might cut if funds were less than
anticipated. Whether or not they have
successive years of fiscal constraints, priorities can vary. He would prefer giving the Superintendent
some specific guidelines and enough flexibility so that as the budget is being
crafted the Committee is not micro-managing.
Susie Heyman stated that
developing guidelines in the manner in which Marc is suggesting makes it all
the more important to understand upfront the impact of last year’s cuts.
Anne Larner believes
that Committee members are basically saying the same thing in different
ways. It does not appear that anyone
wants to see a list of wishes, but when she thinks of ranking she views that as
listing one item as more important than the next. They need to express what is important but
also have something that is not so rigid that without understanding the
implications of a particular level of spending the long-term impact will be
unknown. Perhaps it is the term “ranking”
that is the sticking point.
Nancy Levine stated that
her gut instinct would be to say that saving the classroom experience should be
priority, but that raises a whole host of questions with regard to what that
means. It is not a clear cut decision to
protect one piece without impacting another, which then affects the overall
goal of protecting that area. She is
uncomfortable putting forward a specific document before knowing more about the
unknowns.
Reenie Murphy was not
suggesting prioritizing an entire list, rather highlighting the top three of
most importance.
Dori Zaleznik noted that
they have to make their best effort in developing guidelines for the
Superintendent and staff to begin their work.
Over the next couple of meetings there are agenda items that should
address some of the unknowns around the impact of last year’s cuts, such as the
report on professional development/summer curriculum workshops and a
preliminary class size report.
Marc Laredo believes it
is incumbent upon them to give the administration guidance in making difficult
choices, but agrees that it does not have to be a rigid ranking. After discussion with the public and their
own deliberations, they need to address the areas they feel are most important
for the system. While it will be a
difficult task to craft something that is both specific and yet general enough
to allow flexibility, he believes they are all coming to the same conclusion
from different paths.
Anne Larner commented
that once they have something in writing it will probably be more clear that
they are closer in agreement than it may seem from this original discussion.
Gail Glick understands
that this cannot be a static document, yet somehow they have to provide enough
direction for the administration so that they have set priorities that allow
for some flexibility.
Jeff Young stated that
the complexity of the task is obvious, but setting priorities is
important. The budget itself every year
is an expression of their values. However,
something on the surface that seems simple and agreeable to all, such as
preserving the classroom, becomes far more complex as they discuss the
meaning of that
statement. Does that mean only preserving
class size? Does it mean teachers need
to be trained and ready to instruct the diversity of students in their
classrooms? Does it involve an aligned
curriculum supported by materials, supplies, textbooks and technology? Does it mean a clean, safe classroom with
mechanical functions in working order (heat, ventilation, etc.)? Does it take into account teacher morale by
virtue of how contracts are settled?
Certainly preservation of the classroom is something that is a priority
ever year but carefully crafted language becomes important; otherwise it can be
interpreted in different ways. There are
layers under layers that become evident as something this central to their
values is analyzed and somewhere along the line there will need to be
tradeoffs.
DISCUSSION OF
Anne Larner noted
that this discussion will provide Patty and Reenie with some guidance as they
approach their voting duties at this upcoming conference. The Committee will have an initial discussion
this evening and then continue that discussion and vote on the resolutions at
their next meeting.
Patty Kellogg
mentioned that she will not read the full text of each resolution for the
purposes of expediency, but that they are available on line on the MASC’s website. Tonight she will provide a synopsis of each
for discussions purposes.
1.
This resolution
opposes the increase in the MCAS “competency” score for high school graduation
from the current 220 to 240. The resolution explains that multiple assessments
are more valid and urges the legislature to add this mandate for them.
Patty Kellogg mentioned that she and Reenie discussed the fact that
the issues with high stakes testing are exacerbated by higher scores and the curriculum
may not yet be fully aligned in all districts. Many districts are expressing
preference for multiple assessments.
The Committee was in agreement to support this resolution.
2.
This proposal
opposes establishing a science and technology MCAS test as a sole determinant
of “competency” (i.e. graduation requirement) and calls on the legislature to
provide staff and technical resources and multiple assessments before using the
test.
Patty Kellogg noted that they are already dealing with one high
stakes test that has problems.
Susie Heyman commented that opposing the establishment
of another graduation requirement does not mean the subjects are not of
critical importance, but rather that at this point in time they may not believe
in the need for another competency test for graduation, particularly as they
continue to struggle with the social studies curriculum.
The majority of the Committee was in agreement with this resolution.
3.
This requires the
governor to appoint the parent representative on the State Board of Education
within 45 days of receiving the nominations from the PTA. As of September 2005, the Governor has
declined to make such an appointment.
Patty Kellogg stated that this resolution simply calls for the
Governor to fulfill a preexisting obligation.
The Committee was in agreement with this resolution.
4.
This would seek
the support of MASC through a separate or collaborative amicus brief should the
Comfort case be appealed to the
Patty Kellogg noted that this is a very complex issue and perhaps
the Committee would want to abstain.
The Committee was in agreement to abstain from this resolution.
5.
This resolution
supports urging the legislature to fund a cost study to determine the cost to
fulfill the constitutional mandates. Legislation has been filed but not acted
upon. This resolution would put member
boards on record in favor of this study sought by the Hancock plaintiffs.
Patty Kellogg stated that an impact study could be beneficial and
could prompt an effort to reduce unnecessary or duplicate assessments.
The Committee was in agreement to support this resolution.
6.
MASC has provided
to the legislature the roster of 13 assessment systems and the additional
accreditation system to which districts are held. This resolution calls upon
the legislature to require the State to consider the impact, cost, time, and
energy for districts and to assess if each system is really necessary.
The Committee was in agreement to support this resolution.
7.
This resolution
affirms MASC’s desire to see a well-structured Value Added Assessment (VAA)
system. VAAs allow researchers to use all kinds of student data, including
testing, to determine precisely what factors add to student learning. Opponents
fear that this information and a VAA tool, in the wrong hands, can be
manipulated to attack districts. Some educators also fear that a bad system
will unfairly target teachers of high-risk students. Supporters, however,
believe that, in good hands, VAA can help identify the best teachers,
curricula, home-based supports, and strategies and can provide valuable data on
non-school factors and how they impact students.
Marc Laredo would not support this in its present form.
Dori Zaleznik
agreed and mentioned that there is not enough information provided.
Reenie Murphy
added that this was discussed at last year’s conference and it was tabled.
There was
conversation about whether to abstain or oppose and the Committee was
split. Further discussion will occur at
the next meeting.
8.
METCO students,
despite recent funding increases, still do not trigger the same rate of
reimbursement to a school district that choice-in students do. This resolution
would raise that figure and do it from the general appropriation, not by
garnishing Chapter 70 funds.
The Committee was in agreement to support this resolution.
9.
This reaffirms key
public policy positions taken by past Delegate Assemblies on adequate school
funding, reorganizing the Board of Education and eliminating the ban on public
education personnel (including school committee members) from serving on it,
allowing districts to retain 100% of Medicaid-generated revenues, retaining
standards for vocational school superintendents, securing a moratorium on new
charter schools, and seeking multiple assessments to determine competency for
high school graduates. Note that this year the resolution does not specifically
oppose the graduation requirement, but calls for the multiple assessment
alternative.
It was agreed that
historically this School Committee has abstained on multiple-issue resolutions
even if some of them are things they would otherwise support.
They have voiced
their concern in the past with regard to several unrelated items being lumped
together under one resolution.
The Committee was in agreement to abstain from this resolution.
10.
This reiterates
MASC’s position paper that seeks to eliminate all penalties on public employees
and spouses who are eligible for benefits, and opposes the privatization of
Social Security.
Patty Kellogg noted that this resolution seems to be out of their purview
of being education related.
The Committee was in agreement to abstain from this resolution.
11.
This resolution
identifies the key social services necessary to support children outside of
school, and cites them as critical to successful learning. MASC is currently
the only educational advocacy group stressing the importance of the Social
Services Safety Net.
Patty Kellogg stated that this seems to be a broad reaffirmation of
support for the numerous social services that are currently in place in the
system.
Reenie Murphy felt that this might be another resolution that does
not fall under their jurisdiction and is not sure MASC is the only educational
advocacy group
stressing the importance of the Social Services Safety Net.
Anne Larner felt that they should give Patty and/or Reenie the
flexibility they have allowed in the past when voting, since the final
resolutions can often change once on the floor.
She urged them to take the spirit of what the Committee has been saying
and use their best judgment.
Further discussion will occur at the next meeting.
12.
This resolution
would correct an error by the legislature that changed the school committee
role in School Improvement Plans from “approval” to “review,” MASC seeks the return of this responsibility as a
key role to ensure that schools are following district policies as set by the
committee.
Patty Kellogg noted that when she and Reenie discussed this
resolution it was their opinion that the process has worked well. A collaborative relationship has developed with
the Superintendent in the review and approval process of School Improvement
Plans developed by principals with their school councils, which are then
reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for consistency, quality, and
adherence to the Systemwide Goals. They
did not feel additional approval by the School Committee was necessary.
Anne Larner commented that when the School Committee used to approve
the plans it was fairly meaningless because the only role they really played
was to double-check the consistency with the system’s goals, which can be done
administratively.
Dori Zaleznik noted that there may be some districts that have not
developed School Improvement Plans and this could have been presented as a way
to ensure that the process is being followed in other systems. She suggested it might be worthwhile
abstaining.
The Committee was in agreement to abstain from the resolution, but
again with the caveat to take the spirit of what the Committee has been saying
and use their best judgment.
COMMUNICATIONS
Reenie Murphy announced that the School Committee has commenced
visiting schools and to date has been to
Susie Heyman congratulated the Newton Schools Foundation on their 20th
anniversary, which will be celebrated this Thursday evening at Windsor Club in
Waban. The Foundation has provided a
great deal of support for the school system and has worked very hard to help
them enhance the program, particularly in difficult fiscal times. Many initiatives would not be taking place
without this assistance.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.