Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-24 School Committee MinutesReading Public Schools Reading, Massachusetts Regular Meeting of the School Committee Open Session Date: January 24, 2013 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Superintendent's Conference Room School Committee Members Present Karen Janowski Chuck Robinson Chris Caruso Lisa Gibbs Hal Croft Rob Spadafora Visitors: Joanne King, Wood End Principal Doug Lyons, Parker Principal Tricia Puglisi, RMHS Assistant Principal Michelle Grasso, SEPAC Co -Chair Michele Sanphy, SEPAC Co -Chair 1. Call to Order Staff Members Present John Doherty, Superintendent Mary DeLai, Assistant Superintendent Patty de Garavilla, Assistant Superintendent Alison Elmer, Director of Student Services Conner Traugot, Student Representative Maham Ahmed, Student Representative Barbara Jones, Reading Chronicle RPS Budget Parents Hal Torman, Fincom Karen Herrick, Fincom Paula Perry, Fincom Chairperson Janowski called the School Committee to order at 7:05 p.m. She reviewed the agenda and welcomed guests. Mrs. Janowski called the public hearing on the FY14 budget to order at 7:08 p.m. Mr. Geoffrey Comm, Birch Meadow parent and RPS Budget parent thanked Dr. Doherty and Ms. DeLai for providing a very transparent document. He would like to see the addition of an Instructional Technology Specialist at the elementary level. He would also like the Superintendent to reinforce the fact that no additional staff was hired at the middle school level for the large 8" grade class and the funding for additional positions at the high school represents money we did not previously spend. Mrs. Janowski closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Il. Recommended Procedure A. Public Input (1) January 24, 2013 Elizabeth Bostic, parent and Out -of- District liaison for the SEPAC spoke on behalf of the Special Education Advocacy Network where she is First Vice President to share information on an upcoming school fair /workshop that SPAN will be holding on February 8". S shared that Ms. Elmer and Ms. Burd will be part of a panel discussion on social- emotional learning guidelines and how Reading is implementing them. Ms. Bostic thanked the Reading Public Schools for being a forerunner in the implementation of initiatives designed to support the needs of the special education students in the district. Reports I I. Student (out of order) Maham Ahmed shared that Dr. Ryan will be leading his annual trip to the Metropolitan Opera this weekend. Conner Traugot shared that the juniors will be presenting the Real World Problem Solving projects on Friday. He also shared that the RMHS Boys Track Team won the Middlesex League championship and the Boys swimming team has a big meet for the league championship. 2. Liaison 3. Superintendent B. New Business SEPAC Presentation (out of order) Michelle Grasso and Michele Sanphy, Co- Presidents of the Special Education Advisory Council (SEPAC) shared information on the SEPAC. They defined SEPAC and shared the goals and actions. The SEPAC will work with the Director of Student Services, Central Office Administrators, and the School Committee liaison to provide feedback from the community regarding special education and to facilitate and foster open communication between families and schools. In an effort to increase awareness they have contacted all the building principals and PTO leadership, shared the SEPAC contact information with families and reached out to out - of- district families. The SEPAC will be sending a survey out to families and will be using that feedback to plan for future programs. Mrs. Grasso & Mrs. Sanphy explained that the major goal of the SEPAC is to rewrite the by- laws. They have contacted the Town Clerk who will be working with them to develop the document. They both feel there is a collaborative spirit building between the SEPAC and the Reading Public Schools. Mrs. Janowski thanked Mrs. Grasso & Mrs. Sanphy for coming tonight. January 24, 2013 The School Committee adjourned at 7:33 p.m. The open session meeting was called back to order at 8:30 p.m. C. Continued Business (out of order) The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 p.m. FY14 Budget Discussion Ms. DeLai answered the questions previously submitted by the School Committee. Dr. Doherty handed out information on the Governor's House 1 budget. The School Committee asked clarifying questions. Mrs. Janowski thanked Ms. DeLai providing a detailed response. Mr. Spadafom asked about the strategy to fill the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction position. Dr. Doherty outlined the extensive list of responsibilities for this position. The person will be responsible for implementing the Common Core Curriculum, overseeing several departments, evaluation of staff, overseeing initiative such as PARCC, DDM and Project Lead the Way to name a few. He will be looking someone that is able to lead with authority. Mr. Spadafora discussed the possibility of not filling this position or possibly hiring a person as a Director. Mr. Croft asked who would be responsible for performing the list of responsibilities if we were to fill this position with a lesser title. Dr. Doherty said most of the responsibilities would fall back on him. Mr. Lyons shared that it would not be wise to fill this position with anything but a candidate with licensure m an Assistant Superintendent. He feels that the responsibilities are a daunting task for one person. Mr. Caruso asked if there would be a search. Dr. Doherty indicated that he would discuss this on Tuesday evening. Education is changing and we need a strong leader. 2013 -2014 School Calendar Dr. Doherty reviewed the proposed calendar. Mr. Caruso voiced concerns from parents about starting school before Labor Day and recommended that the Friday before Labor day be a full day off instead of a half day. Mr. Spadaf im would like to explore the possibility of eliminating February and April vacations and having one week in March. January 24, 2013 Mr. Croft moved, se with the first day o1 moving the last day aeainst, FY2013 Capital Plan Mr. Croft moved, seconded by Mr. Caruso, to support the amendments and appropriations to the FY13 Capital Plan as presented. The motion carried 6 — 0. III. Routine Matters a. Bills and Payroll (A) b. Approval of Minutes Mr. Croft moved, seconded by Mr. Caruso to approve the open session minutes dated January 14, 2013. The motion carried 6 -0. c. Bids and Donations Calendar IV. Information V. Future Business VI. Adioumment Mr. Croft moved seconded by Mr. Robinson, to adjourn. The motion carried 6 -0. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. NOTE: The minutes reflect the order as stated in the posted meeting agenda not the order they occurred during the meeting. Handouts: School Committee Budget Questions Information on Governor's House 1 Budget List of Responsibilities and Duties of the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction PF herEd Ddent of Schools FY'14 Superintendent's Recommended Budget School Committee Questions & Answers Introductory Section 1. Page 6 — 4" paragraph: How have we addressed space, additional enrollment and staffing at RMHS in budget for current 8' graders transitioning to high school? In the FY14 Superintendent's Recommended Budget, there are 4.6 FTE positions that have been allocated at Reading Memorial High School to address the peak enrollment that will be entering RMHS next year. Over the last four years, the enrollment has steadily increased and will include approximately 100 more students in the 2013 -14 school year than the 2008 -09 school year. It is not determined yet how these positions will be allocated, but they will most likely be allocated across the different core subject areas and guidance. In reference to space needs, the high school administration is currently assessing all available space which could be converted to classroom space for next year. The high school schedule is also being examined as a way to address the increased enrollment, particularly at lunch time. In addition, we will be making a request at the Special Town Meeting in January to appropriate $25,000 in capital funding for additional furniture to accommodate the additional students at the High School. Finally, there are also some increases to the athletics budget to accommodate the anticipated increase in the number of student athletes. 2. Bottom of page 6. I note the comment that funds are not included for unanticipated out of district placements, extraordinary water, sewer or electricity costs or enrollment increases. We never include this correct? What is the point of making this statement? In past years, we have included funds for these unanticipated expenses so this year is different. That is why we are making the point. This is a very lean budget in that regard. 3. Page 7 -1 "a bullet: Are these the some positions as our former instructional specialists like Mrs. Kwiatek and Dr. Redford? Do we need more than these to address our needs? The information that you are referring to on page 7 are positions that are not in the Superintendent's Recommended budget, but are important enough to be mentioned because these positions will be critical to continue to move forward as a district. These are the same positions that were formerly held by Mrs. Kwiatek and Dr. Redford. If you recall, we eliminated these positions altogether two years ago. The impact of the loss of these positions have been felt by classroom teachers who do not have access to this additional coaching and support, particularly at a time when we are implementing such significant changes in curriculum and instructional practices. 4. Page 7 -1" paragraph: What specifically are the things you would add to the budget to address these issues if monies were not as they are? Please be specific about actual positions, programming, etc., and tell us what we are instead doing to meet these critical needs. There is no easy answer to this question. All of the items listed on page 7 are important and critical additions to the budget if we want to improve student learning. In order to address these needs, we will need to use existing positions, particularly administrators and teachers. From a curriculum and technology integration perspective, we will need to continue to build the capacity of our existing staff which takes time, funding, and additional training. We will need to create structures that are efficient and share from a variety of resources so that we can get the maximum benefit of each person and position. 5. Top of page 7. What would be the cost to add back in Bullets 4, 5 and 6? This affects are our most vulnerable students and we shouldn't be removing this from the budget. We are assuming this would require an addition of 3.0 FTE for a total cost of $190,000. 6. Page 8 —1� paragraph: When will we know about these things for sure? What will we know by the end of this month and what will we know by end of April? We are already beginning to see what the Governor is going propose in his FY14 State Budget or House 1. He is asking for an increase in Chapter 70 funding, but we do not know if other areas of state aid are going to be affected and if the legislature will approve an increase in taxes to offset this additional funding. We may not know the impact of state aid until late spring. We usually find out about health insurance rates in mid - February. Currently, the town is projecting a 0% increase in state aid and a 13% Increase in health insurance. 7. Middle of page 10. Why is thereon increase of $155,492 in out of district placements? The needs of students are constantly evolving. In some cases, we were not able to accommodate the needs of students in our in- district programs. In some cases, private day or private residential settings were more appropriate than public collaborative or in- district programs. Sometimes placement decisions are the recommendation of the team and sometimes parents unilaterally elect an out-of- district placement for their child. In FY'14, the increase is a combination of all of the above, as well as a decrease of $93,000 in circuit breaker funds. 8. Middle of page 10. When did we find out about the transportation contractual rate increase of 3 %? Do we have any involvement with this bid? We contract for special education transportation through the SEEM collaborative. This regional transportation contract saves us considerable amount of money as we share the costs for transporting students from all of the districts to the various schools. The increase in cost is partly contractual rate increase but, also, each year we tend to get a few students that are placed at schools where no other students in the network are placed. These single runs tend to inflate our costs a bit each year as well. 9. What is the percentage we are using for circuit breaker? For FY'13, the reimbursement rate that DESE has assumed is 70 %. 10. Page 11— 5`" paragraph: Every year we ask the same question. How close is the $301( from the town to the number we would be receiving if we applied the tiered fee structure currently in place? Last year, we reached a new agreement with the Town Manager and the Recreation Department to increase the building rental income from $25,000 to $30,000 with a cost of living adjustment each year. This revenue will help cover the custodial and utility expenses associated with building rentals, but will not fully recover the expenses. 31. Do we know for sure that the METCO grant will be reduced? Where are we getting this information? We are basing this on the current revenue picture for the state. However, even if the grant is at or near current levels, we still have to reduce the offset due to the increased transportation costs (no longer sharing bus, cost increase, bus monitor expense). 21 P a g 12. Page 14 — I" paragraph: Every year we ask the same question. Can we ever move town meeting to May so we can hove a better idea about numbers? Honestly, what can we do to adjust this and how can we work with the town? This is an excellent point, however, this is something that is legislated by our Town Charter and is not a School Committee, Board of Selectmen, or Town Manager decision. Such a change would require a Charter Change. The process for a Charter Change in Massachusetts is a bit complex. In essence, communities have two options. Option one is election of a home rule charter commission, which leads to what is often referred to as a "home rule charter." A commission of nine members may be elected to "frame a charter" or "revise its present charter" for a city or town upon petition of 15 percent of the municipality's voters. Once the work of the commission is complete and a recommendation is made, the recommendation requires approval of the voters of the community. Option two is the "home rule petition" route, which leads to what is often referred to as a "special act charter." With this option, a mayor or board of selectmen may appoint a study committee, or such committees may be created by a city council or by a vote of a town meeting. After completing its work, the committee submits its recommendations to the local legislative body, which must decide whether to approve a "home rule petition." If the petition is passed by the legislative body, it is then treated as a piece of proposed legislation - i.e., it is filed with the House or Senate clerk, assigned to a legislative committee, passed by the House and Senate, signed by the Governor and returned to the city or town. In most instances where a significant change is proposed, the legislation will be subject to ratification by the municipality's voters prior to taking effect. The link below will direct you to the Department of Revenue's website where you can learn more about the Charter Change process. htto, / /www mass gov /dor /local- officials /dls- newsroom /ct /charting -a- route - for- charter- change.html 13. Page IS — 2°a paragraph: Where is this .3 team chair going? Will there be a reallocation of team chairs throughout the district? This position has actually now been changed to an additional 0.2 rather than the originally anticipated 0.3 increase. This is not an additional position but rather, the addition of one day per week to an existing 0.2 FTE position. This individual in this position serves as the Outof- District liaison for students who are placed at private schools or public collaboratives. The responsibilities of this position include observing students, attending IEP meetings, and working with families to try to bring students back to the district. 14. Page 20— figure 12: What % of students move on to military? Trades? Workforce? The figure below shows this information requested. 31 Information section 15. Page 50 - 3'a paragraph: Still do not like the term "less efficient" when describing the middle school interdisciplinary team model as related to staffing. I should think that we would be much less efficient overall if we did not support this model. As compared to the elementary and high schools, I understand this, but when comparing apples to oranges, can you really say that something is less efficient? From a pure budgetary perspective, the middle school model is more personnel intense, which does make it less efficient to operate. However, from an educational and research -based perspective, it is a very effective model. If the middle school model were ever dismantled, it would have afar greater financial impact than the cost of the current model. 16. Page 53 —1° paragraph: How do we predict these numbers? Is there a formula? Where do we get our information from? We don't actually predict these numbers. The numbers shown in Figure 28 are actuals for SY'12 -13, not projected for SY'13 -14. I believe the figure label is misleading and will be corrected when we release the document as the FY'14 School Committee Budget. 17. Page 57— Figure 33: the Team Chair line shows the current 5.1 FTE for $393,261 averages to 75,627 while FY14 has 5.5 FTE for $418,565 which works out to 76,102. Other administrator positions seem to be getting increases of between 2.77 and 2.94% with some as high as 3.5% and 9.7% while Team Chairs appear to be averaging 0.63 %. While everyone probably does not make the same amount as Team Chairs, it seems as though it is not equitable when compared to the other non- teaching /non- administrator positions Is this as a result of the reallocation of position for FTE for the pre- school coordinator from a 0.2? The amount budgeted for the 0.2 FTE increase is budgeted at a salary less than the salary for the current employee in the position as this person is at the very high end of the scale. If we had budgeted based on the current employee's salary, the FY'14 amount would have been approximately $5,000 higher than 41 the amount we are carrying. We anticipate that the individual who will be hired will cost significantly less than the current salary. Also, this person would not be getting a 2.5% increase next year if they were hired mid- yearthis year or at the beginning of next year. As an aside, there are many variables that determine a non -union employee's salary increase including funding available, work performance, and who was in the position the previous year and when they began working in the district. For example, the 9.72% increase that is listed in the line item for the behavioral health coordinator represents the fact that the person was hired mid -year during the 2011- 12 school year. As a result, this individual did not receive an increase for the 2012 -13 school year and, therefore, has not received a pay increase for over a year and a half. Financial Section Administration Cost Center 18. Please provide a breakdown of Figure 71— Line 1210 Superintendent. Are two FTE etc...? Line 1210 is the DESE function for Superintendent, which includes the Superintendents salary and contractual obligations, the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent's salary, and other costs related to supporting that position (membership dues, Superintendent's professional development, photocopying, etc.) 19. Legal— Even though next year is a year where we will be negotiating five contracts do youfeel that we need to increase the legal budget by 100 %? There seems to be enough expertise with our current administration and School Committee that additional legal funds may not be needed. During the last collective bargaining negotiations, we utilized 60 hours of legal counsel's time for this purpose. The FY'14 budget amount assumes 30 hours — half of what we used three years ago. We may also need negotiating assistance for the implementation of DDM's for teacher evaluation. We do find that we need legal advice during the negotiation process. We also benefit from legal counsel's knowledge of other district contracts, proposals, and innovative solutions. 20. what range is contemplated for the new Assistant Superintendents salary? Since the budget was developed prior to the announcement of Mrs. de Garavilla's retirement, the budgeted amount reflects the current salary plus 2.5 %. We would anticipate a salary range close to what is currently being paid for this position. 21. Why are physicals up 20 %? To date we have spent $9,528. Typically, we spend another $3,500 - $4,000 between January and June. This puts us on target for spending $13,278 this year. Last year we did physicals on 71 new employees at a cost of $146- $177 per employee depending upon position. This year, to date, we have done physicals on 63 employees at a cost of $154.50 to $189.50. Last year, we did 23 physicals between January and June. If we did the same this year, that would put us at a total of 86 physicals. If you use lower figure of $154.50, that totals $13,287 for this year. We have to do pre - employment physicals for any new employee, not just teachers, but also coaches, paraprofessionals, secretaries, custodians, food service employees, custodial substitutes, food service substitutes. Assuming the same 5% increase in 51 rates we saw last year, we would be looking at a rate of $162.23. Multiply that by 85 employees gets you the FY'14 budget figure. 22. Why are we using an additional $7,500 in Revolving Fund Support? can we afford to do this? Yes, the funds are coming from Extended Day and Adult Ed. The increase reflects the increased amount of time spent by central office assistants in supporting these programs (they currently have no clerical staff supporting the program(. Our staff does recruiting, hiring, payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable for their programs. Regular Day Cast Center 23. Page 89 —1" paragraph —Why are we still subsidizing bus riders? Since we increased the fee to $365, we have seen a decrease in the number of paid riders which results in a loss of revenue to offset the transportation cost of mandatory riders. If we were to increase the transportation fee to the full cost, we would lose a significant amount of paid riders and, therefore, our budget would have to absorb the full cost of transporting the mandatory riders. Eliminating High School paid bussing would reduce our structure from a three tiered bus run to a two- tiered bus run, but would not really decrease our bussing costs as bus drivers are paid for a three hour minimum and the incremental fuel cost is not significant. We are still better off having paid riders that do not completely cover their costs than having no paid riders and having to cover the entire transportation cost for busses that are only partially filled. In addition, eliminating High School bussing would add more traffic at morning and afternoon drop off as well as the number of idling vehicles at both times. 24. Please provide an update on how the Supervisor of Students position that we added last year is working out. This position has become extremely valuable to the high school administration for supervising students who are in in- school suspension, providing visibility in the corridors during the school day, supervising after school detention, and providing coverage for teachers to attend IEP meetings. 25. How much of the $347,506 increase in supplies and materials relates to common core? Of the $347,506 increase, a little over $308,000, or 88.6 %, is specifically for common core. 16. Please give a brief summary of the tools available with the use of Baseline Edge. We utilize Baseline Edge for student data analysis and student intervention planning and management; school and district data analysis including performance measurement and benchmarking; management of the teacher evaluation process including all teacher and administrator evaluation forms, observation forms, and evidence collection; and as a tool for accessing topical educational research. In the future, we will also be utilizing the dashboard feature to set up administrator and potentially community dashboards. 27. How many department heads do we have compared to FY13? Why is this line up 78 %? We have one additional department head this year for Business and Technology. In previous years, these departments were under the Fine, Performing, and Industrial Arts department. 6 1', 28. Why is building technology down 16.4 %? In FY'13, we were able to negotiate a three year license renewal for our internet security software and VPN licenses. This was paid this year and, therefore, will not need to be paid again until FY'16. 29. What percentage of the PD increase relates to common care and is this considered a onetime expense? Eighty five percent of the increase to PD is from additional time or expense for implementation of both Common Core as well as Educator Evaluation, specifically the development of district assessments and district determined measures. This level of funding will likely be necessary for next year and at least the following year. In addition, it is helpful to note that this funding level essentially returns us to the funding levels we were at before FY'10 when, due to financial constraints, we had to reduce curriculum and professional development funding in the district by over 60 %. 30. Why are reducing our substitute line when we are expecting teachers to require more PD for Common Core? There are two substitute lines in the budget, one for teachers who are absent due to illness, personal day, or other related absences (e.g., jury duty, bereavement leave) (function code 2325) and one for substitutes for staff involved in curriculum or professional development work (function code 2355). The first account line is decreasing slightly, while the second is increasing slightly. The decrease to the first substitute line results from the fact that our average per sub day cost this year is running at $70 per day. When we budgeted for the current year, we used an average sub day cost of $75. We presently pay $65 per day for non - licensed substitutes and $75 for licensed substitutes. Since last year was the first year of implementation of in -house substitutes, when we were developing the budget for this year, we were not sure what the ratio of licensed to non - licenses substitutes would be. Now that we have a year of history, we are able to be more accurate in our projection of the per sub day cost. With respect to the second substitute line, the reason that this increase does not appear as high as one might expect has to do with the reason outlined above but also because the budget was based on the assumption that the majority of the work to be done would be done during the summer or non - school hours, thereby not requiring substitute coverage. This is partly why the increase in professional development is higher —the expense to pay teachers for additional time at their hourly curriculum rate is charged to professional development expenses. 31. Why are we reducing the paraprofessional fine by 3.2 %? We budgeted for a 181 school days for FY'13, rather than 180 so the FY'13 figure is higher than necessary. In addition, our substitute costs for regular day paraprofessionals are anticipated to be lower than the current year based on past history. 32. Figure 78 — What is the 9.1% increase far Assistant Principal, Why is Mentor Stipend up 22.5 %? We are currently charging 25% of the Assistant Principal for Athletics and Extracurricular Activities to the Assistant Principal line. Under the former "Athletic Director" model, there was no charge to this line for that position. In FY'13, we budgeted for 34 mentors based on historical numbers. In fact, this year we have 38 mentors based on teacher turnover from last year. Therefore, this year's number will be exceeded by __ 71 $4,448 which we will absorb in our budget. Next year, the rate for a mentor increases from $1,111 to $1,250. In addition, we have assumed 37 mentors. These two factors combined increases the amount for next year. 33. Do we con tinue to see a savings per our "in house substitute teacher" process, i.e. does the -8.9% amount to what we can expect to save in this area? I am not sure of the source of the -8.9% figure. While we do see significant savings based on the per sub day cost, remember that we did significantly increase the number of substitutes in the FY'13 budget due to the beginning of the common core and educator evaluation process. Essentially, we have kept FY'14 levels at the same FY'13 level due to the continuation of these initiatives. Had we still been using outsourced substitutes, the budgeted amount would likely be 25 %- 33% higher than what we are currently carrying for FY'14. 34. Are we committed to a particular academic area where the "academic hire" (1.0) at RMHS will be assigned? Per new ELA guidelines we need a determined offensive in the area of Literacy across the curriculum. At this time, we have not committed to where the additional staffing will be allocated at the high school. Those determinations will be made later in the school year once course registration and student needs are determined. 35. Last year (FY'12) we reduced the Testing Supplies and Materials line by 12 %; this year there is a 65% increase on that line. Why the increase? I am not sure where this information is coming from. In FY'12, the testing and assessment line decreased by 3.3 %. In FY'13, the testing and assessment line increased by 30% due to the addition of the CWRA testing at the High School. In FY'14, the increase is 27.2% and is due to the increase in the number of students at the High School to whom the CW RA will be administered. 36. Virtual School Tuition has increased from approx. $4861 to $10,000. Please clarify the increase. Virtual School tuition for FY'14 is budgeted to be $0. This is because Virtual School tuition payments are now on the Cherry Sheet like Charter and Choice tuition. Originally, in FY'31 we had one student in the Virtual Academy in Greenfield. That increased to two in FY'12. Late in FY'12 (after the FY'13 budget had been adopted), the decision was made to handle the tuitions through the Cherry Sheet rather than charges to local district operating budgets. 37. With a 75.5% increase in Professional Development,' can we expect a persistent and evolving focus on school safety, i.e. can we encourage staff toward that area in professional development choices and reaffirm that encouragement with in -house safety initiatives and /or offerings? Although it is not specifically stated as one of the initiatives we are focusing on, school safety training is always a priority. We have had strong safety plans and procedures in place for the last few years as a result of the Emergency Preparedness grant that we received from the Federal Government. Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy we have been working with local police and fire officials to review our current practices and make sure that they align with the latest national, state, and local best practices. We have made some subtle changes and we will continue to make some changes that are in the best interest of our students and staff. Some of these changes may involve training during in- service days and staff meetings. gl 38. Don't know why the Transportation numbers are down (- 21.4 96) but please explain and while doing souse the item as a prop for good management. This line is on area that most people seem to understand (gas prices, etc.) thus it bean witness to success. The transportation amounts budgeted for FY'14 are higher than FY'13 for both regular education and special education. There was a decrease between FY'12 and FY'13 in special education transportation but this was due to changes in student placements rather than contractual or gas expense savings. Special Education Cost Center 39. Page 96— figure 80 —Still do not understand why 504's are listed in Special Education as they are a general education initiative. As our Director of Student Services oversees them, she oversees other areas of general education as well, so if there are costs associated with the 504's, these should be reflected in general education, not special education. Which leads me to my next question ... Is the salary for the Director of Student Services allocated to both general education and regular education as she oversees many areas in both cost centers? The vast majority of the services being provided to students with 504 plans are provided by staff that are paid from the Special Education budget. The number of students requiring 504 plans and the services required are increasing each year which affects special education staffing which impacts the special education cost center budget. The exception to this are the services provided by the health staff, which, while not part of the special education cost center, are, as noted, under the supervision of the Director of Student Services. Last year, we included the 504 plan figures as part of the Health Services budget. At the time, we were directed that this was not the proper place for this data as so many of the 504 needs are fulfilled by special education not health services staff. We made this adjustment due, also, to the direction received last year. As for the question regarding the salary of the Director of Student Services, this salary is not allocated to both the regular day and special education budgets. It is classified (at the direction of the DESE) solely to special education. 40. When did the pre - school director go from 0.2 to 1.0 FTE? RISE costs have gone up 26.93 % - Page 81. The director a 1.0 FTE up until Mrs. Griffin retired from the position. We attempted to go with a 0.2 for a year and it was unsuccessful. We used a team chair to back fill and assist with running the pre - school. Eventually, we flipped it so the 0.2 was the out of district liaison and the 1.0 was the pre - school director. In addition, we were charging the clerical staff to the Special Education District-wide budget but it should be charged to pre - school as this is now the position. 41. Why was the Therapeutic Support program budgeted in regular day last year? The school social worker was charged to special education. However, the teacher component of the program was charged to regular day. At the time the program was being developed, it was thought that the subject matter instruction would be provided by increasing the FFE of several current regular education staff. As options were investigated, it was discovered that scheduling would not permit us to do so and, therefore, an additional teacher would be required. During that process, a decision was made to hire a licensed special education teacher. This decision was made after the budget had been voted. The adjustment was only $65,000 not $93,000. The remainder of the difference came as a result 91.,- _ of the fact that the salaries for the persons hired for the 1.5 FTE social worker positions were higher than what was budgeted. The total difference amounted to $93,000. 42. Please explain (page 97 paragraph 2) In addition, as we are planning for the current school year last summer, we., ....... resulted in 1.5 FTE special education teaching positions being shifted back to the general fund budget for FY'14. This statement is confusing — please explain. There are two separate issues here. The first issue involves the necessity to hire an additional 1.5 FTE teachers this past summer for the current school year. It was determined that we were out of compliance with the grade span requirement. Essentially, a substantially sub - separate program can only have children within 48 months of each other. Given that the Barrows DLC2 program now has students from K to 5, the group needed to be split into two classrooms, K -2 and 3 -5. Doing so required the additional staffing. The second issue is the anticipated reduction in the federal IDEA grant which currently funds 14 special education positions. Since we are anticipating an 8 % -10% reduction in all federal grants, we needed to shift 1.5 FTE positions back to the operating budget. 43. Why is Prof Development up 6996? Over the past two years, we were fortunate to be awarded a total of $85,577 in grant funding specifically for special education professional development. In FY'12 we received a little over $52,000 and in FY'13, $33,000. The source of this funding was unexpended ARRA funds which have now been exhausted. Prior to FY'12, we received no money federal grant money from the special education professional development grant. The increase in funding is intended to partially offset the loss of federal funds. Specific needs for professional development include de- escalation and restraint training (required annually for current employees with a more extensive training requirement for new employees), behavioral support training and consulting, and co- teaching. 44. Is it realistic to hold legal services flat? Based on current and anticipated hearings and cases and historical amounts expended, yes, we believe this is sufficiently budgeted. 45. Figure 85 — What are Other Consulting Services? There was no expense in this line in FY'13. Funds allocated here pay for consultants who are paid to evaluate and make recommendations regarding special education programs and services, as needed. 46. Figure 85— What are Psychology Supplies? Supplies and materials used in doing psychological evaluations for students. 47 What is the total number of Team Chairs FY'13 vs. FY'14? We currently have 5.2 FTE Team Chairs, two paid from the federal IDEA grant and 3.2 paid from the operating budget. The number for FY'14 will be 5.4 with two paid from the federal IDEA grant and 3.4 from the operating budget. 101- District -wide Programs 4& Health Services - When is the retirement of the School Physician? Why do we always assume to budget for on increase before we have even been out to bid? This is not a service that we need to bid. Dr. Greene has been charging us the same rate for over 10 years. We assume that the incoming physician will require something a bit higher. We are also assuming that an existing in -town physician will be willing to take on this assignment. If we are unable to find a local physician, we will need to contract with a health provider agency, such as a Hallmark Health. The cost for them to provide the service to the district would be significantly higher than the $9,000. 49. Athletics- What would the cast be to implement concussion testing to freshmen and juniors prior to the start of the Football, Hockey and Lacrosse seasons? Some communities currently do this as a preventative measure. There are a number of web - based, online tools available that are priced based on the number of baseline tests to be performed. The range for these tools is between $750 and $2,000 per year. 50. Athletics - How many coaches are projected for FY'14 vs. FY'13? There are no increases in the number of coaches for FY'14. 51. Athletia - Please provide a listing of coaches'salaries by sport separated by head coaches and assistants. Baseball Football Softball Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Head Coach 6,649- 12,432 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Asst Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Asst Coach 3,561 -6,658 Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Asst Coach 3,561 -6,658 Basketball - B &G Freshman Coach 2,610 -4,884 spring Track - B &G Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Goff Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Head Coach 2,610.4,884 Asst Coach 2,143 -4,000 Cheedeaders Gymnastics Swimming - B &G Fall - Footbal 2,143 -4,000 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Fall - Soccer 1,187 -2,204 Assistant Coach 2,610 -4,884 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Colorguard 1,187 -2,204 Hockey - B &G Tennis - B &G Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Cross Country Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Volleyball Asst Coach 2,610- 4,8841acrosse -B &G Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Head Coach 3561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Field Hockey Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 WlnterTrack -8 &G Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Soccer - B &G Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 wrestling Freshman Coach 2,143 -4,000 Head Coach 3,561 -6,658 Asst Coach 2,610 -4,884 11l 52 Athletics — Please provide an update on the maintenance schedule for the Turf Fields. I am very concerned about the condition of Turf 2 and the stadium is also starting to show signs of wear. Have the warranties expired? Turf 1 And Turf 2 have a 10 -year warranty that covers manufacturer's defects and product failures so we still have 4 years remaining on the warranties. The DPW was shown by Northeast turf how to properly run the aerating machine, which needs to be done 3 times per year. The helds are in good shape. The key is going to behaving a yearly maintenance done similar to what we did this past September and having it aerated. We also learned that only cleated shoes should be allowed, sneakers or other black soles cause the surface to get matted down quicker. The following has been done on TURF 1 and TURF 2 in the past 12 months • new infill raked into play areas • aeration with machine • entire surfaces aerated 3 times • tears repaired in the surface • seams re -glued where necessary 53. Athletics — Please explain the new online registration system. The new system, called "FamilylD ", is being utilized by a number of districts in the area. It is a secure on -line tool that allows families to register and manage the registration process for students participating in athletics or student activities. At the same time, it will allow the athletics and activities department to better manage all of the various forms (registration, waiver of liability, etc.) electronically and should reduce the administrative burden. For more information, go to www.familvid.com. 54. Athletics — How much is a game administrator paid? How are they selected and paid and I assume anyone who is on a sideline doing chains, announcing at an event etc... has had a CORI check. Game administrators are typically paid $65 to $75 per game. They are selected by the Assistant Principal and they are paid through our payroll system. CORI checks are performed on all employees and volunteers as required by Massachusetts General Law. 55. Athletics — What is the 5% increase in facility rental charge? This is resulting partly from an increase in usage of ice time and partly from an assumed increase in the rental rate for both the ice rink and the pool. 56. Athletics — What is the difference between crowd monitor and game administrator? Crowd monitors are police details while game administrators are employees who supervise the game site during a game. 57. Athletic— What is the projected amount of funds to came from outside booster groups to be used to fund coach's salaries? We do not have a projection for this. We only staff the coaching assistant positions upon receipt of donations from a particular booster group. Last year, we received $10,215.13 in coaching assistant donations. In the current year, we have received $12,263.47 year to date. 58. Technology— Why does Barrows have so many fewer laptops compared to the other elementary schools? 12 1 There are two main reasons why Barrows has fewer laptops. First, they are one of the smallest elementary schools. In addition, they have invested more of their technology funds for !Pads than most of the other schools. 59. Technology— Why are there so few user groups at Barrows? The answer to this question is similar to the answer given above. School Building Maintenance 60. Why do we have an extraordinary maintenance line item? Wouldn't we go to the FINCOM for a Reserve Fund transfer in these instances? The reason used in the narrative is exactly why we would go to FINCOM. I don't remember seeing this line in the past. Was it reallocoted from other lines? This is one of the DESE function codes and, since we are presenting our budget by function code as well as by object code and detail, we are seeing this level of information now for the first time. These are items that we do not plan for but that arise each year. In general, these are expenses that are below the capital threshold of $10,000 per item. If there was a particular need that exceeded $20,000 - $25,000, then we would likely go to the FINCOM for a Reserve Fund transfer. 61. Are we comfortable with an 1896 increase in Revolving Fund support? Yes. This increase is partly due to the additional $5,000 we are receiving from Recreation as well as the additional amount assessed for use by Extended Day and Adult Education. 62. At some point after the budget can we get a report on how we ended up with Performance Contracting? It would be interesting to see the projected versus the actual energy savings. Yes. Our savings are exceeding what was projected. Remember that if our savings ever was below what was projected, under the performance guarantee, NORESCO would have to pay us the difference. Special Revenue Funds 63. What is SPED P.L. 94 -142 and why is it down 10 %? This is the special education IDEA grant. It is a federal entitlement grant that is based on the number of special education students in our district. We are assuming that it, along with all other federal grants, will be reduced by 10% due to the federal budget situation and sequestration. 64. How do our RISE Tuition rates compare to other pre- schools? Pre - school tuitions in Reading range from a low of $5.30 per hour to a high of $10.80 per hour, with an average of $7.962. RISE tuition rates are in the $6.50 to $7.00 per hour range, depending upon the program. Building Overview Section 65. While I understand that it is best practices to share the individual building budgets, and it is indeed quite interesting to me ... I am concerned that others who look at the bottom line for each school, who are not, like those of us on the school committee, obligated to go through the entire document with 0) me- toothed comb, will see this as on opportunity to look at this as we value one school over another because 13 1 of the monies allocated to each school for different initiatives and items. What feedback have you received about this? We have actually received very positive feedback from the individual school communities, including staff, school councils, and PTOs. The sharing of such information is tied directly to our district's strategic objectives (Performance Management and Resource Allocation) as well as our strategic initiatives (Connect expenses with projected student outcomes outlined in school and district improvement plans). It is important to have this data available so that we can explain to the community where and how funding is being spent and to also show that each school is not identical in the funding that they receive. Remember that 81% of our operating budget is used for employee compensation. Therefore, the majority of the difference in per pupil expenses is based on the number of years of experience of the staff members in a school. In addition, schools that have more or intensive special education programs at their school will have a higher per pupil because more staffing is required. Per pupil spending by school is data that is publicly available. Any member of the community can access this data through the DESE website. However, we felt an obligation to make this data more readily available to Reading taxpayers and provide them with the opportunity to have questions around the data answered more publicly. Not only is it national and state best practice to share site -based budgets, in a recent survey of Massachusetts school business officials, 95% of districts include this information in their budgets and have done so for a number of years. Additionally, in a Financial Program review that was done for our district a number of years ago, one important recommendation was that the district includes site -based budget information in our budget document. Town Buildine Maintenance 66. Shouldn't we leave the Library maintenance budget alone until it is determined that we will go ahead with the renovation? If this doesn't happen in FY'14 the increase would be somewhere around 2 -3 %. The funding that has been cut is funding for maintenance and repairs. The funding for energy and utilities is based on historical averages assuming that even if there were construction, there would need to be heat, electricity, and water to the building. The reduction to maintenance and repairs assumes that even if the library project proposed was not approved, there is still deferred maintenance that would be funded through the FY'14 capital plan. Other Questions 67. Revenue Director position; could we explore adding a position to the budget and perhaps be shared with the town side - incorporates grant writing plus alternatives such as advertising and private funding, etc. Do other districts have these positions? We issued a survey and the table below summarizes the results. In general, other than urban districts and a couple of the vocational schools, no one has a grant writer or revenue officer on staff. 141 -; CHELMSFORD NO Assistant Superintendent WILMINGTON NO Superintendent, Finance REVERE NO Assistant Superintendents CHELSEA YES, Full -Time MANCHESTER -ESSEX NO Curriculum Director or Student Services Director LYNNFIELD NO Principals and Business Manager GREATER LAWRENCE TECH YES DANVERS NO Assistant Superintendent , Curriculum Director, Finance NORTHANDOVER NO Assistant Superintendent NORTHEAST METRO VOC TECH YES, Part-time Business Manager handles all financials BILLERICA NO Assistant Superintendent, Superintendent METHUEN NO Building or Central Office Administrators WESTFORD NO Not assigned SALEM NO Not assigned SHORE COLLABORATIVE NO Professional Development Coordinator NORTH READING NO Director of Academic Services PEABODY NO Not assigned READING NO Assistant Superintendents 68. 1 would like to see a 5 year trend of our per pupil cost against the state average and if possible against our "like" communities. The chart below shows the trend back to FY'99. Per Pupil Spending j $lg000 -.. -. - _ - ___ - _ ____- 913uo6 -$"M Sla x61 513pae $St,858 $10,6E6 58,59 $ID149 Slo,ao] BB,0os 58.1]3 $7.561 — w- _'- i-�'�_ 9.CJ1 58'" _ _ _.. STT49' _ -. $6,69' 3 _�._r "��!- ],311 mr 56.- - - ' %AN $6,385$6,58] — $6,F5 55,88E 50.000. $3.QV $0 FV93 FYDI NOl RU3 rY03 iVUC %CS FVC6 fro] FYC9 FYVJ FVIO FYtl 69. Could you provide us what is being cut in next year's budget, decreased or consolidated? S5 I An integral part of the budget process is to identify where we can decrease spending to offset proposed or necessary increases. Given the budget cuts and lack of increases over the past several years, we found it very challenging to find areas of the budget where reductions could be made. Some of the areas where we were able to make reductions are highlighted below. In addition, we have also included where additional school department revenue has been used as well to help offset the budget deficit. Administration • Supplies and materials (- 2,500) • Shifting of administrative support from administration to health services (- 6,700) • Increase in revenue offset (+7,500) Regular Dav • Paraprofessional substitutes, turnover savings, one less school day (- 24,000) • Software licenses (-30,000) • Library media technology (- 14,000) • Student activity stipends shifted to revolving funds (- 13,000) • Instructional equipment (-22,000) • Instructional supplies (- 15,000) • Sick Leave Buyback (-37,000) Special Education • Public collaborative tuitions (- 465,635) • Increase in revenue offset ( +33,362) District -wide Programs • Health secretarial support (- 4,000) • Athletic director (- 26,089) • Extracurricular coordinator (-6,866) School Building Maintenance • Natural gas expense (- 39,017) • Maintenance expense (-9,700) • Overtime expense (- 15,000) • Increase in revenue offset ( +30,000) Reductions and increases to offsets in total equal $801,369. 70. Have we explored any regional purchases increase our buying power? For example, could we team up with Stoneham or Winchester for some of purchases next yearsuch as the math curriculum? I know in the past office supplies were purchased this way. We still do take advantage of a number of regional, state, and national purchasing collaboratives and contracts. We purchase the majority of our office, school, technology, and custodial supplies through the TEC collaborative— a regional effort with 60 other school districts. We utilize the state contract for the purchase of the majority of our technology (desktops, laptops, printers, servers, etc.). With respect to math curriculum, we would have to have a very significant number of purchasers in order to get any type of discount for purchases of curriculum programs. For example, if the state were to issue a bid for all districts to purchase from, then perhaps there would be savings to be had. We can certainly reach out to our purchasing collaboratives and inquire about this possibility. However, in 16 1 - recent surveys and discussions with many of our neighboring districts and colleagues, we have learned that many have purchased or are purchasing their new curriculum programs this year. 71. Where are we with using online courses at the high school? Is this another way to meet the needs of our students and to address the increase in numbers for next year at the high school? Currently we have 23 students enrolled in VHS courses. Four of these students are taking VHS at the AP level. Of the 23 students 21 are seniors, 1 is a junior and 1 is a sophomore. The issue of class size at the high school is support of our students that are not succeeding, particularly at the strong college prep and college prep level. The class sizes at these levels (particularly CP) are too high to properly support the learning needs of the students. VHS does not help resolve this issue. Although it could be argued that we could push more of our high performing students into VHS courses, this would be difficult. VHS allows kids to explore a topic of interest to them that we cannot offer. It allows us to expand our elective program. It also provides an avenue for a high achieving student that has exhausted all RMHS courses of study in a particular area to continue their learning. It is dangerous to have VHS take the place our care academic programming. Our staffing requests are not to expand our elective program, but to support our core curriculum. Currently, our elective programs (classes like Facing History, Law, Acting, etc.) are over - enrolled in many cases. As our larger current classes become juniors and seniors, more students may need to choose VHS as an alternative to enrollment in these elective programs. We need to maintain VHS to accommodate the elective program. One issue with VHS is that we have found students must be truly able to work completely independently to be successful. There is limited academic support. It is not a solution for all students. 72. Can we formalize one of our initiatives to include implementing a program such as Circle of Friends to meet the social skills /relational needs of our students with special needs? I know we are funding professional development across a variety of areas. I would like to see this acknowledged somewhere. We are using the MTSS as our vehicle to intelligently address our community's needs. Once our MTSS teams, building leadership and district, are able to do a thorough assessment of our strengths, weaknesses, needs and resources, the first priority then becomes bolstering the universal supports and services provided to all students, (tier 1). This could mean that we add or amend programming, resources, structure, or more depending on the specific elements of the area. However, knowing what those specific steps look like at this stage of the process is premature. If there is a clear need for a program or formalized support for a certain group of students, this will be easily recognized when the MISS teams map out their needs. Additional Information One question raised during discussions had to do with whether or not we are maximizing revenues for the school department. Revenue generation opportunities for the school department are generally limited to grants, tuitions, fees, gate /ticket receipts, and gifts and donations. Of the 329 operating districts in the Commonwealth, Reading ranks 158 out of 329 with respect to the percent of total expenditures funded from grants and other revenue receipts. The percentage of total expenses funded from these revenue sources in Reading is 12.3% versus the state average of 13.6 %. When compared to 17__— a set of 31 similar communities, Reading ranks 11" out of the 31. The table below shows this list of communities and their percentages. General Fund Grards,RevolAN& Total Expenditure Per GraMS asa%r dstuG Revenuees i%of Appropriations Other FUnds Expenditures Pupil Tool ndilures MELROSE $34,631,621 $8,027,675 $42,659,296 $10,5881 18.8% MILTON $41,919,910 $8,336,404 $50,256,314 $12,613 16.6% ARUNGTON $50,266,468 $8,700,608 $58,91 $12,942 14.8% NORTHANDOVER $47,280,221 $7,435,444 $54,715,665 $11,503 13.6% STONEHAM $29,039,004 $4,438,447 $33,477,451 $12,449 13.3% WATERTOWN $38,852,065 $5,882,584 $44,744,649 $16,008 13.1% TEWKSBURY $43,976,246 $6,553,065 $50,529,311 $12,W8 13.0% MIDDLEBOROUGH $35,135,671 $5,231,348 $40,361 $11,426 13.0% NATICK $54,584,586 $8122,809 $61 $121649 13.0% BELMONT $41,826,271 $6,086,163 $47,912,434 $11,9691 12.7% READING $43,419,721 $6,101,238 $49,520,959 $10,976 12.3% SAUGUS $34,106,413 $4,700,598 $36,807,011 $12,744 12.1% WESTFORD $52,497,334 $7,177,376 $59,674,710 $11,179 12.0% FRANKLIN $61,620,663 $8,399,418 $70,020,061 $10,709 12.0% DANVERS $4 1,817,966 $5,538,995 $47,356,961 $12,590 11.7% NORTHATTLEBOROUGH $43,922,111 $5,646,856 $49,568,967 $10,343 11.4% MARBLEHEAD $ 38,494,287 $4,948,872 $43,443,159 $12,727 11.4% WAKEFIELD $36,899,4391 $4,718,164 $41,616,603 $12,009 11.3% ANDOVER $77,258,573 $9,81 $87,066,260 $13,697 11.3% MANSFIELD $46,333,461 $5,830,998 $52,164,459 $10,554 11.2% NORTH READING $2$743,500 $3,487,830 $32,231,330 $11,842 10.8% WINCHESTER $46,059,792 $5,297,712 $51,357,504 $11,822 10a%- HOPKINTON $3& 395, 535 $4 ,321,529 $42,717,054 $12,298 10.1% LEXINGTON $94,802,873 $10,215,602 $1W,m8,475 $16,358 9.7% EASTON $38, 697, 122 $4,143,100 $42,840,222 $10,922 9.7% WILMINGTON $ 42,748,850 $4,408,170 $47,157,020 $12,330 9.3% BILLERICA $69,706,3281 $7,125,551 $76,831,879 $12,628 9.3% CHELMSFORD $56,858,181 $5,593,982 $62,452,163 $11,049 9.0% BURUNGFON $52,041,172 $4,450,199 $56,491,371 $15,033 7.9% BEDFORD $38,577,147 $3,033,Ml $41,610,862 $16,963 7.3% LYNNFIELD $24,876,129 $1,919,0451 $215,795,1741 $11,475 7.2% A second inquiry centered on how Reading compares with respect to the percent of total municipal expenditures forthe benefit of schools. For this particular benchmark, Reading ranks 217 out of 338 municipalities. For Reading, in FY'11, school expenditures were 49.88% of total municipal spending. The state average is 44.70 %. In comparing to the 31 similar communities identified above, we rank 15 out of 31. Those figures are shown below as well as the trend for Reading over time for school spending as a percentage of total municipal spending. 181 School Non4dlool School IN of Municipality Upenditums EK endituns Total Ex enditums Tote) TEWKSBURY 39,049,313 27,159,092 66,208,405 58.98 HOPKINTON 32,497,755 24,585,617 5],083,3]2 56.93 MINGTON 65,905,578 50,321,020 116,226,598 56.70 FRANKUN 51,482,831 39,821,940 91,304,671 56.39 NORTH ANDOVER 36,709,207 30,016,641 66,725,848 55.01 WILMINGTON 35,606,980 29,812802 65,419,782 54.43 WESTFORD 43,979,179 37,863,270 81,842,449 53.74 EASTON 31,420,202 27,631,847 59,052,049 53.21 ANDOVER 60,442,671 5,044,014 114,486,685 52.79 NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH 36,358,852 M,327,2WI 70,686,159 51.44 MILTON 33,619,451 31,782,2]9 65,401,730 51.40 LYNNFIELD 19,968,134 19,164,871 39,133,005 51.03 BURLINGTON 43,649,054 43,711,224 87,36,278 49.96 READING 35,050,132 35,223,784 70,273,916 49,88 NORTHREADING 23,233,395 23,353,570 46,586,965 49.87 MANSFIELD 36,667,646 36,978,691 _ 73,646,337 49.79 BILLERICA 56,145,881 56,628,718 112,774,599 49.79 BELMONT 1 32,983,929 33,701,064 66,694,993 49.46 CHELMSFORD 44,38Q101 50,217,372 9,601,473 46.92 WAKEFIELD 27,077,837 30,867,609 57,945,446 46.73 BEDFORD 31,382p64 35,925,699 67,307,763 46.62 MARBLEHEAD 27605,553 31,885,172 59,490,725 46.40 MIDDLEBOROUGH 28,412,123 35,059,436 63,471,559 44.76 NATICK 42,963,471 54,386,056 97,349,527 44.13 ARLINGTON 41,084,134 52,055,130 93,139,264 44.11 STONEHAM 22,647,360 29,721,107 52,368,467 43.25 WINCHESTER 31,923,410 43,215,499 75,9 DANVERS 31,329,261 42,678,479 ]4,3 SAUGUS 26,484,292 3],021,]36 63, MELROSE 27,397,933 38,447,616 65,1 WATERTOWN 32,927,685 56,035,819 1 School spending as a percent of total municipal spending, Reading 56,00 54.00 52,00 50.00 4800 4600 4T00 4200 X49° 1 l~ P, a°�° v Q'e '1 Y '1 ^. Y '� Y 19 1 Competing In the 21 °r Century: The Case for Comprehensive Investments in Education and the Cost of Inaction Governor Patrick is calling for a renewed investment in education in order to create opportunity across the Commonwealth and to keep the Massachusetts economy growing. The Governor's plan includes a $550 million investment in education, reaching $1 billion over four years, to provide universal access to high quality early education for children across the state, from birth through age five; fully fund K -12 education and allow for extended school days in high -need schools; make college more affordable and accessible for high school graduates; and allow community colleges to expand their efforts to provide students with the knowledge and skill training needed to succeed in the workplace. The Commonwealth's Innovation Economy relies on a high - knowledge, well - skilled workforce, and in order for Massachusetts to remain competitive in the 21st century global economy, our commitment to excellence and opportunity for all of our students must start earlier, run deeper, and be sustained longer. We have the strategies in place to build a 21" century public education system that meets every child where she is and gives her the supports she needs to succeed in the classroom, the workplace and in life. These investments are critical to accelerating our growth and ensuring that all students, not just some, have access to opportunity. The Governor's proposal will invest: Nearly $350 million ($131 million in FY14) in our early education and care system to: • Eliminate the Department of Early Education and Care's (EEC) waithst, currently at 30,000 children birth — age five, by providing universal access to high quality early education for all infants, toddlers, and pre - schoolers in Massachusetts; • Expand initiatives to ensure the highest educational quality among early education providers; and • Increase educational programs and supports for parents and family members to further engage them in their child's success. o Incentivize more school districts to offer pre - school to their 4 -year olds through dedicated new Chapter 70 funding. $70 million ($5 million in FY14) in a targeted expanded learning time initiative for middle school students in high -need schools to ensure that schools have the additional time and resources they need to build differentiated systems of learning, and that students have access to enrichment programs that will enhance their ability to succeed both in and out of the classroom. $20 million in funding for comprehensive supports to students and their families in Gateway Cities. $226 million increase in Chapter 70 local aid which will hold every district harmless for aid; keep every district at foundation levels of spending; finish the Chapter 70 equity reforms of 2007; guarantee an increase of $25 per pupil for every district; and increase the assumed cost of the average out -of- district special education placement for school districts. $274 million ($152 million in FY14) in the MassGrant program, the Completion Incentive Grant Fund, and additional funding to our public institutions of higher education to make college more affordable and accessible, particularly for lower- and middle- income students, and ties campus funding to performance and outcomes in order to ensure taxpayer dollars are efficiently being spent. The implications of allowing even one young person to remain stuck in the achievement gap or be limited in their education attainment by soaring costs in higher education go far beyond the harm to that individual student; there are also significant economic implications for local communities and our state as a whole. The Commonwealth's ability to attract and retain employers is inextricably linked to the success of every worker — and the success of every student. No one is expendable. When we shortchange children, we endanger our state's economic competitiveness and quality of life. In order to sustain our knowledge -based economy, we must retain talent and ensure that all of our students have the opportunity to reach their full potential. "We know from academic research, from years of public policy and from our own experience as parents that investing in our children, starting at a young age, pays huge dividends for them and for our community as a whole. To those who say we cannot afford this, i challenge you to show me which 4 -year old you think we should not invest in." Governor Deval Patrick Su000rtive Statements: "Governor Patrick is seeking to provide opportunity for all of our citizens and to ensure that Massachusetts will remain successful in the global knowledge -based economy. We believe that a 50.50 approach to funding our core educational budget is the best path for our students, their families and for the Commonwealth. It is a fair and equitable approach and is the key to providing our citizens with a higher education option that melds quality with affordability." — UMass President Robert L. Caret "We applaud Governor Patrick for taking a bold step toward closing the achievement gap and securing the commonwealth's future economic vitality by calling for substantial new investments in high - quality early education and care. Research clearly demonstrates the lasting short- and long -tens positive impact of high - quality early education — on everything from reduced grade retention and special needs placements to improved school readiness, high school graduation, college attendance, adult earnings and health. With funding for early education and care down more than $80 million since fiscal year 2009, we urge the Legislature to support these critical new investments in young children."— Carolyn Lyons, president and CEO of Strategies for Children "When we invest in education, we invest in the future of our state. Increased education funding is crucial to ensuring that every child has equal access to a great education, but there remains a major challenge for Massachusetts in leveling the playing field for students of all incomes — we need to lift barriers that prevent badly - needed education innovation, including retaining the reforms at our turnaround schools, expanding opportunities to attend charter schools and extending learning time where needed." - Jason Williams, Executive Director of Stand for Children. Initiatives and Responsibilities of Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction 1. Lead the implementation of all Common Core State Standard Initiatives over the next few years a. Elementary Math Curriculum b. Middle School Math Curriculum c. High School Math d. Elementary Writing e. Middle School Writing f. High School Writing g. Middle School and High School Science and Social Studies Literacy 2. Implementation of PAARC Assessments 3. Implementation of new Science Standards 4. Lead the development and pilot of District Determined Measures for every educator in the district 5. Supervise the M ETCO program 6. Lead the Project Lead the Way Initiative at the Middle and High School 7. Supervise and evaluate the following positions a. METCO Director b. Director of Extended Day and Adult Education c. Middle School Health d. Elementary Art, Music, and Physical Education e. Elementary Technology Instructional Specialist 8. Supervise Summer School program 9. Coordinate all professional development activities in the district including: a. Summer Professional and Curriculum Development b. Induction Program for New Teachers c. April Conference d. Any other professional development activities 10. Oversees grant writing a. Title 1 b. Title 2A c. METCO d. Project Lead the Way e. Academic Support 11. Participates in meeting with the following groups: a. Technology Integration Specialists b. TAP c. Reading Specialists d. Curriculum Committees 12. Works closely with Director of Student Services and Behavioral Health Coordinator in developing the Massachusetts Tiered System of Support and making seamless integration of Universal Design for Instruction for all Students