Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-09 School Committee MinutesReading Public Schools Reading, Massachusetts Regular Meeting of the School Committee Open Session Date: January 9, 2012 Time: 7:30 p.m. Place: Superintendent's Conference Room School Committee Members Present Karen Janowski David Michaud Chris Caruso Chuck Robinson Lisa Gibbs Visitors: Cathy Giles, Killam Principal Staff Members Present Karen Callan, Barrows Principal Richard Davidson, Wood End Principal Doug Lyons, Parker Principal Mike Scarpitto, RMHS Assistant Principal Tom Zaya, K -12 Wellness Department Head Erica McNamara, RCASA Director RPS Budget Parents I. Call to Order RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING. MASS. 1011 FEB -2 P12-- 09 John Doherty, Superintendent Patty de Garavilla, Assistant Superintendent Mary DeLai, Director of Finance and Operations Alison Elmer, Director of Student Services Elizabeth Conway, Human Resources Administrator Ashley Testa, Student Representative Andrew Jeromski, Reading Patch Barbara Jones, Reading Chronicle Joanne Senders, Reading Advocate Barry Berman, Fincom Marie Ferrari, Fincom Paula Perry, Fincom James Bonazoli, Selectman Chairperson Robinson called the School Committee to order at 7:31 p.m. He reviewed the agenda and welcomed guests. II. Recommended Procedure A. Public Input (I) Cathy Bean requested that the use of letter grades be returned to the elementary report cards for grades 3 -5. She feels that a letter grade provides an easier means to evaluate a student's progress. Chair Robinson told Mrs. Bean that the School Committee will discuss her concern at a later meeting. Reports I 1. Student January 9, 2012 Ms. Testa reported on the winter band and choral concerts, the upcoming drama production of "The Little Prince" and the upcoming Battle of the Bands. She also shared that the seniors are starting to hear back from school. It is an exciting time for them. 2. Liaison Mrs. Gibbs reminded the audience of the upcoming Coolidge Middle School production of Cinderella. Mrs. Janowski reported on the recent Thomas Darrin Wrestling Room dedication. It was a nice ceremony and was well attended. 3. Superintendent's Report 4. Assistant Superintendent B. Continued Business C. New Business FYI Budaet Presentation Dr. Doherty presented an overview of the FYI budget development process and calendar. He thanked the administration and budget parents for their role in the budget process and went on to thanks Ms. DeLai for developing a clear, concise and transparent budget document. The Superintendent went on to review the budget drivers which include the district mission and the Strategy for Improvement of Student Outcomes. The challenges faced developing this budget included the effects of 3 years of level funding, Federal Stimulus funding ends, unknown impact of state aid and health insurance costs, unknown kindergarten enrollment and the use of 1.5 million in reserves. In the development of the FY13 budget the district faced challenges that include absorbing the 3 years of level funding which accounted for the reduction of 34.8 positions, increased enrollment and class size, restoration of FYI reductions, addressing technology hardware replacement, addressing the social - emotional needs of our students, implementing the Common Core Standards and Educator Evaluation tool, and the need for continued improvement and innovation. Dr. Doherty outlined the district priorities for the FYI budget. Behavioral health of all students, continued growth and development of staff, low class sizes in grades K -2, middle school interdisciplinary model, 21" century learning initiatives, maintenance of the technology infrastructure, maintenance of our facilities and retention of all regular day programs are the outlined priorities. Ms. DeLai continued to review the FYI budget drivers. She pointed out that the teachers are not receiving step or COLA increases for the first year of their contract. She reminded the Committee that the Administrators and non -union employees did not receive increases last year. It is important to restore the cuts in per pupil funding to the schools as well as the return of the paraeducator hours that were reduced. The district must also absorb the cost of the salaries funded by the EdJobs grant. Ms. DeLai shared that we have benefitted from lower natural gas prices and have seen a savings and plans increased use of accumulated revenues in revolving accounts available to offset approximately $400,000 in expense in FYI 3. January 9, 2012 Dr. Doherty reviewed what he would like to include in the FYI budget. The expansion of the Middle/High School Health Education program, Therapeutic Support Program, High School In- School Suspension Program, technology replacement, restoration of instructional supplies and materials, partial restoration of paraeducator hours, hiring a district wide School Psychologist for assessment, additional staffing to address special education services, District technology support are the highlights of this budget. FYI Administration Cost Center Dr. Doherty reviewed the make up and functions of this cost center. He indicated that the Central Office staff has provided support for not only the central office administrators. The responsibilities have included support for the METCO, Health Services, Athletics and high school. He went on to review the roles of each office within the Central Office. The Superintendent outlined the components of the Administration budget which include salaries and expenses to support the district ranging from telecommunication costs to office supplies. Increases in this cost center include salaries (professional & clerical), professional development for staff, supplies and materials and software licenses. Decreases have resulted from the elimination of the substitute coordinator; grant writing, less opportunities available, auditing, labor counsel and telecommunication costs. The administration cost center accounts for 2.4% of the total budget He indicated that the integrity of central office is vital to the success of the district. Dr. Doherty and Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. Chair Robinson called a brief recess at 8:38 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:47 p.m. FYI Regular Day Cost Center Ms. DeLai reviewed the make up and functions of this cost center. He briefly reviewed how the budget was developed. He budget includes staffing requests to address the social- emotional needs of our students and include the addition of Middle and High School Health Educators, teaching positions for the Therapeutic Support and In School Suspension programs and the restoration of paraeducator hours. Ms. DeLai reviewed the Regular Day budget increases which include salaries, supplies & materials, professional development, tuition reimbursement and curriculum work, technology replacement, elementary report card implementation and Virtual school tuitions. Regular Day reductions have resulted from in -house substitute service, the elimination of non - subsidized bussing and a new lease agreement for the district photocopiers. Dr. Doherty reviewed the professional development and curriculum development work going on in the district. He then introduced Ms. Erica McNamara and Tom Zaya, who presented an overview of the proposed Health Education program. A K -12 Health Education Assessment Team was established to investigate ways to improve the Health Education program. Through their research the team identified what Reading did well and what was not being done well. Using this information the team developed ideas to improve school health which include the January 9, 2012 implementation of the Behavioral Health Task Force recommendations, improving behavioral health screening, leveraging school -wide health initiatives, connection with students, start Therapeutic Support/increase counselors, piloting Teen Screen, gather student input at the Wellness Day and engage the school nurses in health education programs. The proposed program is more interactive and covers the gaps in our current health education program. Ms. McNamara then addressed the budgetary impact of the implementation of the program. First steps include hiring a K -12 coordinator to oversee the implementation. The finalizing of the K- 12 curriculum maps, acquiring updated materials, expanding the teaching team and implementation of professional development would be step 2. Step 3 would be to explore the best ways to phase in new material at each level to reach students at the developmentally appropriate stage and to maintain appropriate scope and sequence across schools and grade levels. This initiative will begin at the middle and high schools next year. Dr. Doherty and Ms. DeLai addressed the questions submitted by committee members. III. Routine Matters • Bills and Payroll (A) • Approval of Minutes • Bids and Donations Calendar IV. Information V. Future Business VI. Adioumment Mrs. Janowski moved, seconded by Mr. Croft, to adjourn. The motion carried 6 -0. Meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. NOTE: The minutes reflect the order as stated in the posted meeting agenda not the order they occurred during the meeting. tF. Dohert", m. rintendent of Schools FY2013 Budget Questions /Comments — Chuck Robinson Refresh my memory. When was the last time we increased the RISE Tuition and how does it compare to other preschools? I noticed that enrollment continues to grow and we are now using space at Wood End. What is the reason for this increase? RISE Tuition was increased 25% in 2007 -08 and then another 20% in 2008 -09. There has not been a tuition increase since FY09. With respect to how we compare to other preschools, as the table below shows, we are at the higher end when compared to other area public pre- schools but in the middle to lower - middle when compared to the local private pre - schools. 2011 Pre - School Tuition Rates Public RATE Woburn Preschool $5.64 Stoneham Preschool $5.64 North Reading Preschool $6.41 �TReading :Preschool. $$6 5:. Lynnfield Preschool $8.55 Private Little Treasures $5.37 Goddard $6.94 �Readmg Preschools �,� �, $6 75:x. Christian Cooperative $7.99 Humpty Dumpty $8.13 Sawyer Preschool $9.11 We cannot know for certain why enrollment is growing but we can speculate that it is a combination of demographic trends (more pre - school age children born or parents of pre- school children moving into town), the number of options that our pre- school offers to parents, price, and, most importantly, the quality of the program. What is the status of the waiver applied for by the MA DESE for flexibility from NCLB regulations? The Massachusetts DESE is awaiting word on whether or not the waiver has been approved. Several states have applied for a waiver for certain parts of the current law. If the state receives the waiver, it will not have a budgetary impact, because the waiver is not related to our work with the Common Core or New Teacher Evaluation System. 3. Can we get the data outlined in Table 2.16 for 2009 -10 and 2008 -09? The data is below. The SGP data was not collected by the state in 2008 -09. SGP by Schools 2009 ELA 2009 Math 2010 ELA 2010 Math Barrows 34 45 36 51 Birch Meadow 61 61 67 54 Joshua Eaton 50 74 58 54 Killam 42.5 69 52 58 Wood End 44 70 50 61 Coolidge 61 69 72 57 Parker 52 60 63 58 RMHS 47 24 40 34 4. How many years of transition are we allowed for Common Core? The state has allowed for a 3 year transition period. This time frame began in January of 2011 when the new MA Curriculum Frameworks that incorporate the Common Core State States were formally adopted. The MA DESE has stated that there is an expectation for near full implementation for both ELA and Math in the 2012 -2013 school year with full implementation of the new standards in the 2013 -2014 school year. The MCAS testing for 2013 will be based the new MA Curriculum Frameworks /Common Core standards (2011) in the area of ELA. There will still be some overlap with the 200012004 Mathematics Frameworks in the area of Math for 2013 MCAS. In 2014, all state assessments will be based on the 2011 Frameworks and Common Core. 5. Can we get an update on how the new substitute program is working? Currently, we have 173 substitutes working for Reading Public Schools including 113 teacher substitutes and 55 paraeducator substitutes. Sixty -one percent of our teacher substitutes hold Massachusetts teacher certifications. Fifty out of our 113 teacher substitutes formerly worked for us through Kelly Educational Set-vices. As the chart indicates, our fill rates have been very close to the fill rates achieved when we utilized Kelly Services. This chart shows the fill rates for the first four months of the current year as compared to the same four months in the prior year when we were utilizing Kelly. It should also be noted that the rates for Reading Public Schools include the f lling ofparaeducator and nurse absences. Those figures are not included in Kelly's fill rates. Summary and Administration 1. Table 3.1 General Fund Summary on page 21 notes a 6.3% or $53,829 increase in Administration yet the narratives on pages 23 and 26 note an increase of 5.1 % or $43,065. Please explain the discrepancy. Table 3.1 is correct. However, Table 4.1 is incorrect. We discovered this last week and, as a result, provided the School Committee with a revised Table 4.1 last Thursday. The text has not been updated to reflect the accurate figure which is 6.3% or $53,829. 2. Under Accommodated Costs Why a 6.8% increase in transportation? Our actual spending in FYI was $896,589, not including the additional $24,000 in parent reimbursement. This year we budgeted $850, 000 which does not reflect the additional students that went out of district this year (three students to date). We are projecting another 8 to 10 out of districts placements next year each with a projected cost of approximately $5, 000 for an overall increase of $70, 000 for this year's budget of $920, 000 which is still below previous years' spending. 3. Has there been any consideration to decreasing the amount of the district's subsidy for non - mandatory transportation? The only way to decrease the amount that we are subsidizing for transportation would be to increase the transportation fee. We increased the user fee in FY2011 by 30% (from $280 to $365). We did see a drop in participation as a result of the fee increase. Another increase would likely result in an additional drop in participation which, if significant enough, might offset the fee increase for the remaining riders. 4. What would be the cost to include the 7`h grade class and the 2012 -13 8`h grade class with the understanding that we would revert back to 7`h grade only in 2013 -14 for the new Health Education Curriculum. At this point we do not know whether health education will be in Grade 6, 7 or 8 for next year. It will depend on several factors, including where it developmentally should be taught and availability of time in the middle school schedule. To teach health education in more than one grade next year will require double the staffing (up to 2.0 FTE Health Education Teachers) and an additional amount offunding for materials and training. Potentially, it could cost an additional $100,000-$] 10, 000 to teach it in more than one grade. 5. How much was the METCO grant reduced? At this point, we do not know if the METCO grant will be reduced because the funding for the grant will be in the State FY13 budget. Each year, for the last three years, there has been an attempt to reduce the METCO grant at the state level, although at the end it has been level funded. We are anticipating a decrease in grant funding and will adjust accordingly if the grant is increased or level funded. 6. Typo on page 35 of budget. Half way down in paragraph beginning with Currently. Second sentence should read: In Grades 3 -8, students receive about 10 hours of physical education per year in their physical education classes. Should the first physical education be replaced with health education? Yes. 7. How do future Full Day K costs look by increasing the use of the revolving for 2013 budget balancing? For the last three years, we have ended the year with a balance of between $450, 000 and $475, 000 in the FDK revolving fund, despite the fact that our budget offsets have been increasing each year. Those budget offset amounts, however, have been keeping pace with actual revenues. In fact, this year we anticipate revenue to be very close to the projected budget offset of $620, 000. Based on current enrollment projections, we anticipate FDK tuition receipts next year to be around $575, 000. Therefore, with the budget offset at $820, 000, we will be drawing the fund balance down to around $230,000. If we have the need to keep the offset at $820, 000 for the following year (FY14), we would project the fund balance would be completely eliminated. Therefore, in FY15, we would have to either (a) reduce the offset to a level consistent with the revenue we would project to receive in FY15 (around $600,000), which would result in a $220, 000 decrease in our budget or (b) increase the FDK tuition. The increase necessary to generate an additional $200, 000 in FDK revenue based on current FDK enrollments would have to be approximately $1,200 per student per year. 8. How many hours are estimated that the proposed Suspension Coordinator be in actual suspensions versus other duties? Who is currently providing coverage when teachers are in team meetings? Based on historical suspension numbers over the last three years, we anticipate that the Suspension Coordinator will be needed for approximately 40 -50% of the total school day to supervise students who are suspended. The remainder of the time will be used to provide coverage for teachers to attend IEP meetings, which we are currently not addressing adequately. We currently provide coverage in a variety of ways for teachers to attend special education meetings. Unfortunately, with reductions in paraeducator hours over the last few years, it is difficult to provide that coverage and there are times that we are not able to provide coverage for a teacher to attend an IEP meeting. In our most recent Coordinated Program Review, we were cited and corrective action was required for our failure to have General Education staff attend each IEP meeting. 9. Explain the decrease in transportation on page 36. Providing transportation to mandatory students at Killam, Parker, and Coolidge as well as non - mandatory students at Wood End required three buses. With the elimination of transportation to Wood End, we only require two buses each day which has resulted in a decrease in transportation costs. 10. Don't we already have the Ed Jobs funding? Why are we increasing by $97,000 if we already have this funding (page 24)? In the current year's budget (FY2012), we are funding $414,707 in positions. The salaries for all of those positions have been shifted back to the operating budget in FY2013. We have $236,253 remaining in EdJobs for 2013 that will be used to pay teachers a one -time payment of $600 per FTE as negotiated in the collective bargaining process. This one -time payment is different than the additional competency stipend that was also negotiated. The additional competency stipend is a $500 amount that is paid to teachers who have achieved certain additional competencies such as dual certification in the subject area they teach and special education. The column movements and additional competency stipends were intended to be paid from the operating budget, not EdJobs. 11. The significant increase in Professional Development is outlined on pages 34 and 35. Please provide a dollar breakdown by initiative. Elementary Open Circle Training 10,000 Writing Curriculum Development 6,660 Report Card Committee 1,332 Common Assessment Development 8,880 Middle Math Curriculum Work (Common Core) 8,880 Common Assessment Development 6,660 Science Curriculum Investigation 2,664 High School Math Curriculum Work (Common Core) 8,880 Common Assessment Development 8,325 Districtwide Consortium and Collaborative Dues 8,860 Expanding the Boundaries Materials ! 2,500 National Institute for School Leadership 1,500 Bullying Prevention Training 3,500 ArtsFest 4,500 District Safety Committee 4,440 Behavioral Health Committee 3,330 Technology Committee (BYOD) 8,325 Teacher Technology Training 3,500 12. Can we expect to see funding requests for middle school science in FY 2014 (page 39)? The funding in the Recommended FY13 budget is for teachers and the Assistant Superintendent to research and investigate a scope and sequence and new curriculum material for the 2013 -14 school year. Based upon those recommendations, an amount of funding will be recommended in the FY14 budget. 13. How will be the student and teacher performance be measured in the junior class special project (page39)? I would like to see more detail (when available) on this initiative. At the February 13 School Committee meeting, the high school administration and staff will be doing a presentation on the Junior Class Real World Project Initiative. At that time, the student performance piece will be presented. 14. The Instructional Technology line is up significantly. I have read the narrative, but I would like a discussion on how we got here all of a sudden with all of the funding, grants etc... that have been toward technology in recent years. Over the last three years, we have used Federal Stimulus funding and PTO funding in some schools to purchase additional student computers, SMART Boards and to upgrade our infrastructure of servers and network across the district. What we have not done is replace computers, particularly those computers that were purchased with building project funds in the Wood End, Barrows, and RMHS building projects. We currently do not have aline item in the budget each year for replenishment of technology. We need to begin to have a replenishment cycle of six years so that our technology does not break down. We are beginning to see the building project computers breaking down and becoming obsolete. FY2013 Budget Questions /Comments — Hal Croft 1. Given our focus on behavioral health, have we investigated the team teaching approaching in Grade 9 at the high school? If we implement that model, I feel that it could reduce the other staffing requests that are in the FYI budget. You will notice on page 4 in the budget book that 'Implement high school best practices which include a redesigned freshman year, senior projects, project -based learning, a redefined schedule, and implementation ofMASS Core graduation requirements" is in the plans as described in the Reading Public Schools Strategy for Improvement of Student Outcomes. At this point, a committee has not yet been established to discuss how this would work, because there are different models that exist out therefor a Freshman Academy type model. The minimum that we would need to implement this model would bean additional 5.0 FTE teachers, or approximately $250, 000, which essentially is one teacher for each of the five core subject areas. The goal is to research the different models that exist, visit schools that have implemented the model, and develop a proposal for the FYI budget. This proposal would coincide with the large freshmen class that would be entering the high school for the 2013 -14 school year. 2. As transportation costs rise, have we considered purchasing our own mid -size busses, which could be used by both the district and the town? It would seem that a small number of such vehicles would decrease the cost over the long run. We have looked at this alternative a number of times and each time our analysis shows that the cost to "in- source" transportation would be prohibitive. More and more districts across the state are outsourcing transportation. In order for transportation to be provided by the district, we would have to procure two mid -size buses, pay drivers at a rate comparable to prevailing wage (since that is what private vendors must pay), fuel costs, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. We would also need to hire a part -time transportation coordinator to handle all of the internal logistics (routing, scheduling, reporting, substitute drivers, etc.). In addition, the buses would need to be replaced every seven years. Smaller buses would also limit our ability to generate revenue by providing transportation to non - mandatory riders. We are not aware of the town having a need for regular bus transportation. The van that is operated by Elder Services could not be replaced with a standard school bus given the special needs of the elderly population served by that van. FY2013 Budeet Ouestions /Comments — Karen Janowski 1. What is the rationale for keeping the grade 8 to grade 9 enrollment figures unchanged? (Page 7) Historically, as the narrative explains, 87.3% of our eighth graders transition to the high school. This is not reflected in the projected ninth grade enrollment figures for 2012 - 2015. It has been our practice to present enrollment projections based on rolling forward our current enrollment to the next year. We have no way of knowing or projecting how many students we will lose between the two grades and the number has varied widely historically. 2. Is it time to reevaluate the locations of our elementary special education program locations due to the discrepancy across the district? (page 15). Because of costs and space limitations, we have only had one of each type of special education program at each level. Currently, we have programs at all five of our elementary schools and we have one RISE preschool session at Wood End. Next year, the LLD program that is currently at Birch Meadow will be shifted to Joshua Eaton. That should serve to balance the numbers somewhat. 3. A comment only as unfunded mandates continue to impact our budget — "Curriculum and professional development expenses have been increased by $120,000 in order to provide adequate funding for work that needs to be done to align our curriculum to the common core develop common assessments to be used as part of the new teacher evaluation system and provide bullying prevention training to staff." (page 24) 4. Where is the $25,000 savings from in house management of substitute teachers reflected? In the regular day budget, Table 4.5, under Teacher Substitutes, you will see that amount budgeted for FY2013 is $32,677 lower than the FY2012 budget. 5. The technology work order ticket system has identified the "inadequacy of current staffing levels." (page 25). What additional creative ways are we considering to address this need? How can we use students to handle technical issues? Our goals include preparing our students for their futures. This appears to be one way to address this goal — provide students with skills training, and provide opportunities to apply these skills, complete community service, and fill leadership roles. We agree that we would like to get students more involved in providing a student help desk for technology support and we have done it on a more informal scale, however, we do not have the staffing at this time to plan, implement, and supervise such a project. There are also some logistical issues involved with students providing technology support including maintaining security of the network and access of support at elementary and middle schools. 6. What has caused the District Administration Telecomm line to decrease by 9.5 %? As stated in the budget narrative, the figure used for FY2013 is more reflective of our three prior years of actual history. Most of the savings that we have seen is from upgrading our phone systems and migrating away from multiple individual lines to trunk lines with direct inward dialing. 7. Why are we increasing the cost of Textbooks and Consumables by 25 %? How is this line category different from Instructional Supplies and Curriculum Materials? The increases that you are seeing in most of the Supply and Material lines of the regular day budget are reflecting the restoration of the $100,000 to the building expense budgets (also known as the ' per pupil'). This funding is provided to the building principals to allocate for instructional supplies, instructional materials (textbooks, consumables, etc.), instructional equipment, and instructional technology. You will see that instructional supplies also increase by 22.9% and technology supplies by 37.2 %. The textbook and consumables line represents the costs of annual replacement of instructional materials such as Wordly Wise and Fundations consumables, Everyday math journals and home links, guided reading materials, History alive materials, and assessment materials. For FY2013, there are some additional expenses for a variety of initiatives such as writing at the elementary school or new AP courses at the High School. In addition, replacement texts are also funded from this line. Instructional supplies consist of items such as paper, pens and pencils, staples, toner, art supplies, rulers, science supplies, batteries, etc. Curriculum: materials are materials that are purchased at the district level for new curriculum initiatives or to supplement or expand existing initiatives. 8. What specifically are we added under Technology Supplies, Software Licenses and Instructional Technology categories? (page 36). On page 40, it lists "some of the upgrades and perceived needs for technology." Aren't these tools we already have in the district? What specific hardware and software titles will we be adding? The increase in technology supplies, as mentioned above, reflects the allocation by the building administrators of the restored $100, 000 in building per pupil budgets. One of the expenses that has been increasing over time in this area is the cost of replacement bulbs for smartboard projectors. Expenses for memory and other components necessary to replace or upgrade computers have also been on the rise. The most significant expense attributable to software licenses is the cost of the filtering software license. This is a three year license which expires at the end of the year. The cost for the license for the next three years is projected to be $28, 000. In addition, we are incurring additional costs as a result of the new elementary report cards and the use of the AP Web teacher interface offered through Rediker, our student information management system. We also have an additional cost for a data analysis tool that replaces Test Wiz but offers far greater data analysis, benchmarking (not just between: buildings, but between other districts in Massachusetts and nationally), action planning, and research tools. The increase in Instructional Technology reflects the technology replacement initiative discussed within the budget narrative. We have a significant number of computers that are 6 years old or older and will be in need of replacement. Many of these computers were purchased as part of the RMHS, Wood End, and Barrows building projects.