NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF REGULAR & BUDGET MEETING, MARCH 27, 2006

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

PRESENT: Chairperson Dori Zaleznik, Vice-Chairperson Marc Laredo, Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Anne Larner, Reenie Murphy, Claire Sokoloff, Jonathan Yeo, Mayor David Cohen, Superintendent Jeffrey Young

ABSENT: student representatives

OPEN SESSION

MOTION: At 7:00 p.m., it was moved, by roll call vote,

to convene in executive session for the purpose

of discussing issues related to personnel. If

passed, the Committee will reconvene in open

session at 7:00 p.m.

(Glick - Larner)

7 – 0 – 2

Absent for vote: Zaleznik

Absent for executive session: Mayor Cohen

Roll call vote by ward:

Ward l, “yes” (Glick); Ward ll, “yes” (Murphy); Ward lll, “yes” (Larner); Ward lV, “yes” (Yeo); Ward V, “yes” (Heyman); Ward Vl, “yes” (Sokoloff); Ward Vll, “yes” (Laredo); Ward Vlll, absent for vote (Zaleznik), Mayor Cohen, absent for executive session

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Zaleznik called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Barbara Simkowski, Director of the Newton Community Education Program, talked about how their program has been educating people for their entire lives in a wide variety of subjects for over 100 years. They give people a chance to earn their GED, learn English, provide programs for seniors, enrichment classes for children, summer camps, etc. If they had the ability to expand they could bring in even more revenue for the system. However, if user fees and expenses continue to grow they will be unable to continue to fulfill their mission. Talk about moving the programs from Newton North High School to Newton South does not take

into consideration the fact that there is no public transportation to that part of the City. She hopes they will take this into consideration as they think about user fee increases and surcharges.

Jinping Zhou, member of the Board of Directors of the Newton Chinese Language School, expressed dismay that the Committee is considering voting to increase the rental fee that they currently pay to use Day Middle School by 100%, in addition to the custodial fee increase that was just voted at the last meeting. This will cost an additional $11,000 more this fall, which is a lot for a non-profit organization. They had to recently increase their tuition by 12% to cover rising costs and this increase will most likely mean they will need to do that again.

STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES’ DISCUSSION

None.

RECOGNITIONS

The following recognitions were acknowledged:

· The Newton Lodge of Elks, in conjunction with the Grand Lodge of Elks, for donating dictionaries for all 3rd grade students in the Newton Public Schools.

· Jonathan Winkler, social studies teacher at Brown Middle School, for being selected to receive a $2,500 gift from Best Buy Te@ch, along with Brown Middle School, which will receive $15,000, to further his work toward the integration of technology into teaching and learning.

Marc Laredo praised the Newton North High School theater department for their recent excellent production of Chicago.

APPROVAL OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

MOTION: It was moved to approve the School Committee meeting

minutes of 1/23/06.

(Yeo – Heyman)

unanimous

REPORTS

None.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

DISCUSSION OF ENERGY AUDITS

Superintendent Young noted that at the last meeting the Committee talked about the energy audit that was conducted at Day Middle School and the 20 mini-audits of the other buildings. At that time, it was the Committee’s desire to see if there were any projects that could be undertaken in the short-term to achieve some savings with a relatively quick return on investment (ROI). This is the theme of spending now to save later that has been articulated throughout the budget process. Tonight’s material includes some recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. The costs associated with the projects, as well as the projected ROI, come directly from the consultants. While there is no identified funding source for these projects at this point, if the Committee is interested in pursuing any of these they will work with the Mayor’s office to see how they might be able to get these projects underway.

Michael Cronin, Chief of Operations, walked the Committee through the specifics. The first item deals with the Day audit and the energy management software, which has passed its useful life and which the consultant suggests replacing. This would cost the system $27,500, with an ROI of seven months. The second item addresses retro-commissioning of Newton North, to replace motors and electrical equipment, as well as well as the software management system. If the Committee approves this item they will consider using charter maintenance funds to have the consultants conduct a more detailed audit, similar to what they did With Day. A conservative estimate for this project at North is $150,000, with an ROI of ½ year and will cost approximately $13,000. The third item is to replace the UV fan motors systemwide with high energy efficient models. The ROI on this item is less than a year and the cost is approximately $375 per motor, with about 400 needing replacement. NStar will offer a rebate to the system of $150 per unit. The fourth item is the suggestion to operate the boilers at modulation mode, which means less wear and tear as the systems start up and shut down. This would cost $35,000 with an ROI of less than a year. The fifth item is to replace failed stream traps, of which they have approximately 640. Fourteen buildings are steam-heated, so they have to identify which ones need replacing. They estimate the cost of this to be $100,000 with an ROI of one to two years. The final item is to install trim control sensing devices on the boilers that do not have this item. This is a sensor on a boiler which modulates it and makes it run more efficiently. This would cost $100,000 with an ROI of one to two years.

Mayor Cohen asked what the useful lives are on the items they would be replacing.

Mike Cronin stated that motors typically have a 5-10 year lifespan, so this certainly will be for the remaining life of Newton North. Energy management software is typically a seven year lifespan. The univent motors can last up to 20 years. Steam traps typically are replaced every four or five years and the trim control sensing devices vary from a couple years to 10+.

Mayor Cohen commented that they are still talking about at least a two-fold ROI over the useful life of the improvements and in some cases ten-fold. He asked how confident they are in the numbers.

Mike Cronin stated that they will not be fully confident of their estimates until they get more concrete information. However, the consultants have been very conservative in their numbers.

Susie Heyman commented on the importance of the city or schools having someone on board next year to be able to manage the software. This needs to be looked at in a holistic way, as there are still many capital needs on the back-burner. She is a bit nervous about using charter maintenance funds given how tight they are in that account.

Mike Cronin commented that they may want to do another review of using charter maintenance before making this decision.

Marc Laredo is pleased that they are taking some initial steps and hopes that the Mayor can help them find funding. If that is not possible, the Committee may want to consider allocating some of its own utilities budget for these purposes. Since they will be getting a ROI in the course of a year on many of the items, this might help them avoid having to use charter maintenance funds. He would also advocate for more in-depth audits of all the buildings as there may be more savings that can be identified.

Mike Cronin agreed but noted that for this fiscal year they were only prepared to put forward these initial proposals. He noted that it is important to remember that if they wait until July 1^st to start the funding of these projects they will not realize the full savings because this will result in extending the ROIs out further and they would lose the July and August months, which are the heavy demand timeframes.

Anne Larner asked about the cost for the fuller audits.

Mike Cronin stated that this is what is referred to as the Master Energy Efficiency Plan for $75,000.

Anne Larner believes it is important to identify funding and push ahead as quickly as possible. As the Committee heard earlier in public comment, these costs are impacting programs. Anything they can do to try to tackle these costs is extremely important and worth putting funds up front to bring these costs down as quickly as possible.

Mayor Cohen stated that they might be able to have the City advance the money in FY06 because of the time constraints and then use the energy money savings to reimburse the City in FY07 for what was advanced.

Reenie Murphy asked about the likelihood of having the projects completed this summer if they start the process now.

Mike Cronin stated that he would want to talk to their HVAC contractor about some of the things that are within their scope. They have already had preliminary discussions about the possibility of putting off some of their formal summer functions, which can be done in the fall. If approved, he would push some of the traditional July and August work into September because this is a great opportunity. Some of the other work would have to be bid out, which will take several months.

Susie Heyman stated that an expedited process is going to be necessary given the short timeframe they face.

Mike Cronin agreed and noted that this is why he is attempting to do as many things as possible before having to go through the bid process, such as using on-call vendors.

Marc Laredo suggested they continue to keep this item on their upcoming agendas for regular status reports on the progress.

Dori Zaleznik cautioned the Committee that they would technically be borrowing against next year’s budget, which they know already is going to be tight. Some of these items may take a couple of years for the ROI to be gained, which could limit them in their ability to add back personnel if additional money should be forthcoming.

Mayor Cohen noted that this is a point well taken. Whatever repayment plan that is devised between the City and schools needs to be done in a way that makes it worthwhile for 2007.

REVIEW OF LITERACY PROGRAM

Jeff Young stated that the purpose of this discussion is to bring the Committee up to date on the work that has occurred in the literacy program, which was introduced into the system following the support of funds from the Override. This is a program of which the system is very proud and the Committee has continued to support through difficult budget times.

Carolyn Wyatt, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction, is very proud of this initiative and the work of Greg Hurray, K-8 English Coordinator, and Francine Goldstein, K-3 Early Childhood Coordinator, who have been instrumental in its success. This program coincided with the K-12 curriculum revision and passage of the No Child Left Behind act, which dictated that by 2014 all students should be in the proficient or advanced levels. The Override allowed them to put a lot of support into this program. Tonight’s discussion will cover the curriculum development, resource acquisition and distribution, assessment timeline, and evaluation.

Greg Hurray, K-8 English Coordinator, welcomed this opportunity to update the Committee on the literacy initiative. Much of their initial work had to do with laying down the infrastructure to obtain the desired results. The hiring of full-time literacy specialists was one critical piece. Another was the development of a consistent and coherent student-centered program that reflects the recommendations of most of the national reading organizations. A new phonics program was put in place in grades K-2 and will be fully rolled out into grade 3 next year. If one walks into a classroom today the program is in full swing, with whole class instruction, small group work, and curriculum integration. At the middle school level they have increased reading instruction across all subject areas. In terms of assessment, they now have complete records on every child from kindergarten through 6th grade and will be extending that into 7^th next year. They have developed tools to help analyze data and he is very proud of the work they have done on the progress reports, with the help of Lisa Robinson, previous Early Childhood Coordinator. They now have a rubric for describing reading performance that is helpful to teachers and parents in understanding how children develop as readers. Foundation libraries have been put in place in each school K-5, with differentiated materials. With regard to their work around supporting struggling readers, they are doing a good job K-2, anticipate expanding that to grade 3, and need more work in grades 4-9. They have worked very hard to build capacity among staff and feel they have been fairly successful in this area. All of the K-2 teachers have been trained in reading assessments. All K-5 teachers have had training in explicit instruction in comprehension strategies and they are now beginning this work for teachers in grade 6-8.

Francine Goldstein talked more specifically about early intervention and supporting struggling readers. The goal of this program is to have all children be proficient readers by the end of 3rd grade through explicit systematic instruction delivered by the classroom teacher, with extra time for children who require additional support. Children receive small group instruction on a daily basis in the classroom vs. the previous Primary Intervention Reading Program (PIRP), which was a pull-out program three times a week. The materials in the PIRP program did not necessarily carry over into the classroom, whereas now there is continuity and consistency of instruction. The greatest difference between the two programs is that rather than having an aide working with students they are putting instruction into the hands of the teachers, who are best trained to determine students’ needs. A series of assessments throughout the year based on benchmarks and teacher input are used to determine who would benefit from early intervention and it is basically students who are below benchmark. A literacy aide supports the teacher by working with small groups, which provides time for the teacher to focus attention on children who need it most. In terms of measuring progress, they utilize the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), which has benchmarks that help determine what level a child is at during various times throughout the school year. Most children spend an average of 12 weeks in the program depending upon their progress, but it is flexible enough that they can stay in it as long as needed. Student progress is monitored in a number of ways, such as districtwide assessments, standardized tests, and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam. All teachers receive an assessment timeline which outlines the benchmarks and schedules for every grade up to 3^rd. In terms of professional development, this year 3^rd grade teachers were trained to use the Foundations Phonics program, as well as fluency training. In addition, extensive professional development opportunities have been offered to the literacy aides. In some cases these aides are so well trained and knowledgeable that they can consult with teachers about children and even work with specific children in the early intervention program. One of their goals is to extend this training to the Learning Center and English Language Learners (ELL) teachers to help them also learn to identify children at risk. Another goal is to be able to offer a refresher course for this program since it has now been in place for several years. Finally, she would like to do some additional phonemic awareness workshops for kindergarten teachers.

Gail Glick asked about expansion of the program into the upper grades.

Greg Hurray stated that it is going to take from five to eight years to roll out the program in its entirety and he believes they are on track. They are doing pretty well in grades 4 and 5, which has gone from teachers using one novel and teaching to the entire class to a lot of small group work and differentiating instruction to students’ appropriate levels of challenges. On the down side, there is no intervention support program in place at this level, so it is not a fully implemented and supported program. They are looking at duplicating the model of the early literacy aides and it is beginning to pay off, but it is basically an issue of resources.

Anne Larner asked how they assure not only that students are meeting benchmarks, but are also developing a love of reading and writing, which is not lost in the drive to perform.

Carolyn Wyatt stated that the foundation libraries are meant just for this purpose because students can access books about subject matters that interest them and that have different levels where they could read something easy and for fun, to something at their current level, and then something more challenging. The idea is to match the child with the topic of interest which will then naturally get them reading.

Greg Hurray added that hiring the best teachers, who love to read themselves, is the most important factor in instilling this same passion into children. They have made the message clear to teachers that MCAS is not to take over all that they do because by doing what they do in class every day they will reach the goal that MCAS seeks to impart. It would be a grave mistake to reach a point where they are interested only in test preparation for more than a couple of weeks out of the year.

Dori Zaleznik commented on the fact that the gap on the graph between the average student progress vs. those who have had early intervention does not appear to have narrowed much by the end of the second grade.

Greg Hurray responded that it is more the rate of progress that matters. In 1^st grade most students who qualify for early intervention made ¾ of the year’s worth of progress compared to the full year’s progress of an average student. In 2^nd grade those same students made the full year’s worth of progress even though there is still a gap between the two groups. The difference between the factor of 28 in the DRA level for the average student at the end of 2^nd grade and the 24 for those having been served in the early literacy program is a relatively small gap. A level 24 still requires strong skills, so there are positive signs that this program is working and also allows them to identify students who are not responding to the intervention so that they can provide them another level of support.

Marc Laredo asked if all students are included in their data or if there are some with such severe disabilities that they are not counted. He also asked how they plan to increase to a 90-minute reading block without expanding the school day and what the tradeoff will be for that decision.

Francie Goldstein replied that nearly all children are included in the numbers because even those receiving special education services outside of the classroom, such as in the Learning Center, still participate in reading in the classroom and are considered part of the early intervention group.

Greg Hurray added that they continue to look at the 5% of students with severe disabilities to try to identify them as early as possible and provide targeted support right from the start, which is why they have moved the program into kindergarten. They are also piloting a program in three schools run by Tufts University that tries to address the needs of students with indicators of pre-reading difficulties that would suggest they might have trouble pulling together information to be fluid readers. In terms of the additional reading time, in his opinion they will be losing nothing and gaining a great deal and this is because of the increased work around curriculum integration. One example is the science program where they have taken a predominantly hands-on inquiry based program and supported those inquiry investigations with text-based experiences. So students work with guided and independent reading materials and follow-up with a reflective writing exercise.

ACTION ITEMS

FURTHER DISCUSSION/VOTE ON USE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS FEES

Anne Larner discussed a situation that was brought before the Committee at its last meeting. In the review of all of the user fees, four anomalies were found that for some reason were receiving special rates not approved by the School Committee: Newton Chinese Language School, Newton Cantonese School, Korean School of New England, and Massachusetts Chinese School. These schools use a great deal of space in the buildings on weekends and are receiving a 93% discount. The Subcommittee is recommending doubling their fee, which would still give them a substantial discount (86%) and which is still considerably better than the rest of the long-term users who receive a 50% discount. In fairness to other users, the fee for these four schools was so out of line that they felt this increase necessary in order to be fiscally responsible, but they did not want to charge for the full amount in one fell swoop, which would have quadrupled their fee. The Subcommittee is also recommending a review of this entire category again next year.

Dori Zaleznik asked what this would cost per child.

Anne Larner replied that it would be $8.00-$12.00 per student for the year.

Susie Heyman noted that no one likes to increase these fees because all of these types of programs provide wonderful experiences for children and are non-profits. However, the extraordinary increases in energy costs, coupled with the cuts in the educational program, have forced them to make in the past several years’ budgets leave them with few options. Their core mission and responsibility is to the K-12 program, so she will support this recommendation albeit reluctantly.

Jonathan Yeo looks forward to having further conversations next year in an attempt to find ways to keep costs down for the users and the administration, such as through moving programs to energy efficient spaces.

MOTION: It was moved to approve the recommendation

for the increase in rental fees for certain educational programs that fall under the C permits (Newton

Cantonese School, Korean School of NE, Newton

Chinese Language School, Mass Chinese School),

as outlined in the 3/11/06 memorandum from the

USB Subcommittee. In addition, the Committee

approved the recommendation of the Subcommittee

to review the rental structure for C permit holders

during FY07, with any changes to take effect 7/1/07,

as outlined in the memorandum.

(Heyman – Yeo)

unanimous

Anne Larner next took up the issue of summer use of buildings and air-conditioning surcharges. The recent data from the energy audits and other information has shown that summer usage costs are staggering in some buildings. Since there is fairly low summer use by C permit renters the Subcommittee felt it was a good place to attempt a pilot program around fees, monitor these efforts, and then come back next year with some assessment and possible suggested fees for all users for the following year. These fees will apply to Day Middle School, Newton North and Newton South High Schools.

As a mitigating factor, they are proposing that rates not be applicable to the rental of less than 10 classrooms.

Marc Laredo asked if Newton Community Education would be impacted by this recommendation.

Anne Larner responded that they would not be impacted this year, but it does provide a “heads up” for the possibility of fees the following year. They need to have further conversations about this so that they can determine how to best address this issue until a new energy efficient building is in place.

Marc Laredo will support this motion but agrees that there needs to be a lot more discussion around the impact this will have on Newton Community Education and other similar users. He noted that they do not have a surcharge for heating buildings.

Anne Larner stated that heating costs are built into the basic hourly fee as a contribution towards utilities. The issue here is that the electricity is the utility that is spiking out of proportion during summer months. It is easier to move administrative meetings and conferences into more energy efficient buildings, but with groups such as Newton Community Education and Summer School, which are fee based programs, there are a variety of issues involved such as transportation, neighborhood relations, etc.

Jonathan Yeo commented on how expensive it is to keep the Newton North gym up and running for one day, which is 2 ½ times the cost of the same at Newton South.

Dori Zaleznik asked if they have any chance of recovering some of the air-conditioning costs this summer should a program be able to move to another location.

Mike Cronin noted that staff are in the building during the summer months, so there are parts of the building that would still require air-conditioning. However, the rest of the facility (90%) could run solely on regular ventilation, which would save a tremendous amount of energy.

Anne Larner added that in the case of Day, and possible North as well, it would require a small investment of $5,000-$7,000 in order to run the system in this energy efficient manner. Considering the high electrical costs, this is a minimal investment.

Dori Zaleznik invited people whose programs would be impacted to pass along their concerns to the Committee and this will be taken up again at the next meeting.

FINAL VOTE ON FY07 BUDGET

Susie Heyman wished to raise some of the issues brought up by the public at the budget hearing. The comments made about the Family & Consumer Science Program were heartfelt and sincere. It was quite obvious how much the program means to these students, not only as possible future career plans but the fact that they found their nitch in high school and were experiencing a true smaller learner community (SLC) with an extremely supportive teacher. She is not second-guessing this recommendation because there is nothing left to cut, but as they are faced with making more of these difficult decisions it is important to remember that one of their goals is to be sure that every high school student finds a connection with an adult and with the school.

Anne Larner agreed with Susie’s comments. It became apparent to her in listening to the speakers how limited her knowledge is of the Career & Technical Education program as a whole. It might be helpful if in the near future they can learn more and discuss alternatives and opportunities that are available to students. It would be good to understand the available support systems and the long-range view of the individual student’s program vs. a particular class or piece of the program that might be being considered for a cut.

Gail Glick was also struck by the eloquence and passion expressed by the students about this program. Whether intentional or not, it had grown into an SLC, which is the goal they are working toward in the high schools.

Reenie Murphy asked about the status of the lease-to-buy option for computers.

Jeff Young stated that they have been in discussion with the City re: the pros and cons of leasing vs. purchasing and they should have a recommendation by the next meeting.

Dori Zaleznik noted that the Committee will vote this evening on a bottom line knowing that there are still uncertainties about the implications of some of these decisions at the local level. They have seen how carefully the administration has worked on this budget this year and they have done a better job at identifying issues in advance. If additional money is forthcoming from either the City or State they have identified areas where they would like to reinstate funds.

Jeff Young admitted that the loss of the Consumer & Family Science Program is a real shame and the clothing component is probably not something that can be replicated. However, in having to deal with successive cuts for the 4^th year in a row, nothing was off limits, with the exception of charter maintenance, so every area of the system has been hit.

Claire Sokoloff talked about the importance of good communication as they move forward, so that they can evaluate and assess the impact of these changes at the school level. She is particularly concerned about programs for a fragile group of students who need the supports most and she wants to be sure they are being well-served.

Mayor Cohen agreed that this is not the end of the process nor can it be the end of community involvement because funding from the State impacts on what the City can put back into programs, so this involves a lot of lobbying. They have to work to maintain the increases that the Governor has promised in his budget and encourage the legislature to do even more. To that end, he reminded people of the 4/26 rally at the State House and to contact their legislators.

Susie Heyman noted that all the speakers at the public hearing on the budget addressed legitimate, worthy programs which, given sufficient funding, there would never have been any discussions about cuts. What particularly struck her were the comments by the PTO Council Co-Presidents and President of the Newton Teachers Association about looking at the system as a whole because they are one community that values education. She hopes they are in a different place within the next few months so that some of these items can be reinstated.

MOTION: It was moved to approve a final vote on the

Superintendent’s Recommended FY07 Budget,

as outlined in the straw vote, for a total of

$143,599,686.

(Laredo – Glick)

unanimous

VOTE TO APPROVE GRANT

MOTION: It was moved to accept the grants totaling $234,025 (Community Preservation Act – CPA: Bowen Elementary School; Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students and Assistance for Homeless Children and Youth Program; and One-to-One Program), as outlined in the 3/21/06 memorandum.

(Larner – Heyman)

unanimous

COMMUNICATIONS

Anne Larner reminded people of the 4/7 EDCO legislative forum.

PUBLIC COMMENT

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

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.