Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-24 School Committee Minutes H01 Town of Reading (e - f' EG�IVE� 3' a Meeting Minutes 0Vji1y _(:hk 6j'-�moee° Board - Committee - Commission - Council: !gym i School Committee Date: 2016-10-24 Time: 7:00 PM Building: School - Memorial High Location: Superintendent Conference Room Address: 82 Oakland Road Session: Open Session Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Jeanne Borawski, Chuck Robinson, Elaine Webb, Linda Snow Dockser, Gary Nihan, Julie Joyce Members - Not Present: Others Present: Superintendent John Doherty, Assistant Superintendent Craig Martin, Director of Finance Gail Dowd, Director of Student Services Carolyn Wilson, Student Representative Mario Cutone, Al Sylvia, Reading Chronicle, RTA President Eric Goldstein, RPS teachers, Joshua Eaton Principal Eric Sprung, Killam Principal Sarah Leveque, Alicia Williams, SEPAC Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Linda Engelson on behalf of the Chair Topics of Discussion: L Call to Order Chair Borawski called the School Committee to order at 7:03 p.m. II. Recommended Procedure A. Public Comment RTA President Eric Goldstein spoke on behalf of the membership that the School Committee take action and a position on Ballot Question#2. The RTA is opposed to Question#2. Mrs. Borawski felt it was important to focus on the override question. Mrs. Webb, Dr. Dockser and Dr. Nihan all feel the committee should discuss this matter at the next meeting. Mr. Robinson asked if it would be a discussion and vote. He would like to hear from the other side. Mrs. Webb pointed out that there is a lot of information on the MASC website. Page 1 1 Dr. Doherty said it was good to have this discussion before election day and suggested we include the information from the League of Women Voters brochure in the packet. Resident John Lippett also spoke against Ballot Question#2 pointing out that districts pay for students to attend Charter Schools in this state. Resident Jim Roscoe also spoke against Ballot Question#2 pointing out that Somerville,where he teaches,has paid$7 million dollars to Charter Schools for students that attend from Somerville. He pointed out that he does not oppose Charter Schools rather the funding methods. Resident Erin Calvo-Bacci asked what the difference was between money for Charter Schools vs.vocational schools. Mrs. Borawski called a brief recess at 7:28 p.m. Char Borowski called the meeting back to order at 7:30 p.m. B. Consent A¢enda Mr. Robinson asked the Committee if there were any consent agenda items that they would like removed. There were no requests. Mr. Robinson moved,seconded by Dr.Nihan,to approve the consent a¢enda as presented. The motion carried 6-0. - Minutes October 17, 2016 - Coolidge Field Trip-Quebec C. Reports Student Representative Maria Cutone reported that the field hockey team was celebrating senior night. Liaison's Report Dr. Snow Dockser reported on the upcoming production of"The Wedding Singer". Mrs. Webb reported on the"In Plain Sight"display at the Police Station last week which was eye opening. The SEPAC will be hosting a workshop on Tuesday night entitled"Anxiety& School Performance". Chair Borawski mentioned an RCASA event on November 30`^. The School Committee will be posted. Director of Student Services Mrs. Wilson reported on a recent meeting held with SEEM and North Reading transportation,am special education transportation vendor. This is an annual meeting to review safety protocols, training and improving communication. Page 1 2 She also mentioned the upcoming SEPAC workshop that will be held Tuesday _ night in the Schettini Library. Superintendent's Report Dr.Doherty handed out a memorandum from Town Manager LeLacheur recommending that the Killam Field Project be put on hold for the time being. He next reported on the recent NESBA competition held in Reading last weekend. Our band and color guard performed well. The band received a gold medal and came in 2a^in their division. He commended all those associated with these programs for their hard work and dedication. D. New Business PARCC/MCAS/Common Measures Presentation Mr. Martin provided an overview of the state assessments given in the spring of 2016. The Science MCAS was given to grades 5, 8 and 9 and ELA and Math to grade 10. Passing the MCAS is still a graduation requirement for the grade 10 students until 2019. PARCC was administered to grades 3 —8 in math and ELA/litemcy and grade 8 in algebra. Assistant Superintendent Martin said that state assessment results provide C evidence as to how well a student, subgroup,or school has performed in relation to the standard of the curriculum framework and are used for program evaluation in aligning curriculum,instruction, and assessment practices. The data is also used to identify students who may need additional supports. He went on to review the MCAS data Mr. Martin pointed out that the science results for the elementary and middle level continue to indicate the need to update our curriculum and instruction at these levels. This work began last year,and it continues to be a priority for the district in order to align with the state's new curriculum framework and revised assessment due in 2018. In FLA 99%of our high school students scored in the proficientladvanced range and in math 93%of the high school students scored proficientladvanced.. Mrs. Joyce asked about the grade 5 science scores. Mr. Martin indicated that teachers are looking at the data He shared that it will be a three-year process and expects that when these students take the grade 8 assessment,which will test cumulatively grades 6, 7& 8,to we improvement. Student Representative Cutone left the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Martin feels the scores are lower than we expected. Mrs. Borawski asked when we can expect to see a bump. Mr.Martin said that data will continue to be evaluated yearly. When the state changes the assessment the cohort will have 3 ` years of using the new curriculum. Dr.Nihan asked how often elementary students have science. Ms. Leveque said 80 minutes per week, approximately every other day. Page 1 3 Mr.Martin moved onto the PARCC results and reviewed the five achievement levels. Mr. Martin provided a year by year view of the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations from 2012-2016. As we have been transitioning to the state's new standards,this is a helpful examination to determine our progress. We are continuing to review our K-3 curriculum,as we continue to examine our 3rd grade results. For 8th grade algebra, 100%of students either met or exceeded expectations. The percentage of students qualifying for the middle school algebra pathway has also been increasing to 23%this year. As a result of increased student readiness,we are currently reviewing all the secondary pathways and criteria to maximize student opportunity and success. Mr. Martin then explained the difference between"achievement and growth",the student growth percentile(SGP). Assessment scores indicate how each student is achieving relative to the state standards for that grade level and growth indicates a change in an individual student's progress from one year to the next as compared to their academic peer group. He next reviewed the data for the high needs subgroups for all students. The district is generally pleased with the aggregate progress toward proficiency for "all students,"we must continue to disaggregate the data to specifically address the high needs subgroup—especially students with disabilities. Moving forward we will continue to review all the data and released assessment information in our ongoing efforts to improve the curriculum,instruction and assessment in all content areas and grade levels. We will continue to administer PARCC to grades 3—8 while grade 10 will continue to be administered the MCAS math and ELA assessments as a graduation requirement. The School Committee asked clarifying questions. Mr. Sprung provided an update on Joshua Eaton's plan and direction for student success. He reviewed the areas that can impact student achievement scores. Some of the areas include student attendance,typing/student comfort with the computer, student behavior,K-5 instruction,Principal leadership,the amount of recess and student time on learning to name a few. Mr. Sprung went on to review areas of progress and strength which include improved communication with new web page,Facebook and the newsletter,recognizing student for positive behavior, Math Olympiad Program,implementation of the Know Atom Science curriculum and combined growth scores above 50%in ELA and math. He pointed out that the school has been reviewing instruction practices and data for grades K—5,the types of interventions and having the same high expectations for all students. The Joshua Eaton community has had a lot of success,there has been a big shift in the culture. He reviewed the 4 areas of focus energy and <. support as part of the improvement planning which are Special Education, Interventions, Data and Instruction. Joshua Eaton is using data to put individual plans in place with specific interventions for students that need the support. These are not necessarily IEPs. Page 14 Mrs. Webb stated that it dovetails with the level 2 MTSS supports. Mr. Sprung commended his staff for their willingness to identify the work that needs to be done and they want to see positive outcomes for all students. Dr. Doherty referred back to the goals slide and pointed out that all our schools have been working on identifying the gaps as part of the School and District Improvement Plan. The principals are analyzing the student data. Mrs. Borawski asked if Mr. Sprung was surprised by the results. Mr. Sprung responded by saying that change and continuous improvement take time. He was not totally surprised by the results. Dr.Nihan asked how long it would take to get to this point. Mr. Sprung said the district is fortunate to have the data coach. We can now look at data from kindergarten through grade 5. He has also reached out to other Level 3 schools to discuss strategies they have used to make improvement. Dr. Dockser asked if the PLCs have been helpful. Mr. Sprang said they were. They have had a huge impact allowing conversations to create consistency. Mrs. Borawski thanked Mr. Sprung for attending. E. Old Business Second Reading and Approval of Revised Policy JJF—Student Activities Accounts Mrs. Webb moved,seconded by Dr.Nihan,to dispense with the second reading. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Robinson. moved,seconded by Dr.Nihan,to accept the second reading and approval of revised Policy JJF—Student Activity Accounts. The motion carried 6-0. FYI Budget Update Mrs. Borawski asked the committee to bring brainstorming ideas for guiding principles as they begin the FYI budget process. Superintendent Doherty will be working with his administrative team to develop the FYI budget. III. Routine Matters a. Bills and Payroll (A) �- Warrant S1717 10.20.16 $363,829.14 Warrant P1709 10.21.16 $1,544,707.99 b. Calendar Page 15 IV.Information Mrs. Joyce announced that she will be resigning her position on the board effective October 3151 citing personal reasons for her decision. She said it has been an honor to serve on the board. Mrs. Borawski thanked Mrs. Joyce for her service. V. Future Business VI.Adiournment Adioum Dr.Nihan moved,seconded by Mn. Joyce, to ad iourn. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjoumed at 9:48 p.m. NOTE: The minutes reflect the order as stated in the posted meeting agenda not the order they occurred during the meeting. wh4— Joo F. DoheO, Ed.D. Handouts: Memo from Town Manager State Assessment Data Presentation Page 16 CU.e� Office of the Town Manager 781-942-9043 fir. 16 Lowell Street townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Reading, MA 01867 www.readingma.gov/town-manager To: Board of Selectmen From: Robert W. LeLacheur,Jr.CFA Date: October22,2016 �J RE: Killam Field Project CC: Superintendent John Doherty and DPW&Public Services/Recreation town staff For the current fiscal year Town Meeting had approved a $350,000 capital project to improve the drainage and layout of the Killam fields, as well as to complete a paving project in the rear parking lot area.This project was scheduled to be completed during the summer 2017, so work would have begun next month. I am hereby using the authority granted to me under the Charter and cancelling this project effective immediately for the current fiscal year. I understand that to date there has been no financial expenditure on the project. These funds will therefore be used at April Town Meeting to balance any Ccurrent fiscal year expenditures,or returned to Free Cash on lune 30,20171f not needed. As I have mentioned previously,a combination of factors have led me to take this action,including: - the MSBA is re-evaluating all schools in the state, and Killam may become an active building project If state-matching funds appear. Right now, a Killam building project is listed on the Capital Plan but there is no specific time frame. Next week the MSBA begins visits to the Reading schools, but we may not have any answer for several months. A building project would at a minimum probably take 3-5 years, but it would be foolish to do work that might be for naught that quickly; - two of the four key town staff positions that would oversee this project are currently vacant, and the hiring freeze I established late last summer continues. Other project work is a higher priority as we work short-handed; - the expected near-term settlement of RMHS construction litigation requires a rearranged capital plan, where recreation capital as well as some DPW equipment and Facilities work will be delayed into the future. The capital plan that will formally be submitted to November Town Meeting is therefore already out of date, and a revised version will be submitted as part of the FY18 budget process;and - the failure of the Override last week will require us to examine all proposed expenses that do not cover essential services for the community. The revised capital plan will show this project rescheduled out in FY23. This date will be Flexible depending on the situation with the Killam Elementary School as well as our future financial condition. State Assessment Data An Update from the Assistant Superintendent for Learning&Teaching September 1016 1 English Language Arts & Mathematics MCAS For Reading Memorial High School (with overall state data and also 2015/2014 results) 2016 High School English Language Arts 2015 2014 and Mathematics MCAS (Percentage of Students at each achievement smre level) Prefer Prefer PP,`., Higher Adv Prof NI W Higher Adv Prof NI RMHS ELA 99 64 35 1 0 98 69 29 1 RMHS Math 93 70 23 5 2 92 74 18 7 2=2 State HS ELA 92 47 45 6 3 91 49 42 6 State HS Math 78 54 24 15 8 78 53 25 13 Adv=Advanced/Prof=Profioen t/NI=Needs lmprovem en t/W=Warning (Foiling) 2016 2015 2014 `' High School Student Growth Percentiles(SGP) x x x x x High Motl.h low Maderns,h.ah h MSap Mo CH Median Mo4erate to v Growth GrowlM1 GrowtF Hlgh 6mwtF SGP Xlgh GlaM G-:SGP NgM1G RMHS ELA 39 18 43 57 48 58 46 5] 47.5 RMHS Math 1 42 1 20 38 1 62 55 64 54.5 1 39 31 Massachusetts measures growth for students by comparing the change in their achievement on statewide assessments to that oftheir "academic peers"(all other students in the state who previously had similar historical assessment reeultsl. The state defines moderate(or expected)growth to be between the 40-60 percentile,with low growth as below the 40th percentile and high above the 60th pe¢entile. Science and Technology/Engineering MCAS For all Reading Public Schools (with overall state data and also 2015/1014 results) 2016 s Science and Technology/Engineering MCAS 2015 "1014 — (PercentagearSadents,eyschool,aleacM1 achlevemen[srore level) P refer Prof., Praf ar E63 NI w Higher Adv Prof NI w Higher Adv Prof NI W OM.ad. 47 6 61 15 46 32 7 69 28 41 22 9 ow 36 6 60 is 45 36 4 58 25 33 35 6 43 3 78 20 58 20 3 53 12 41 41 7 38 9 61 B 53 32 6 55 I5 40 41 5 d 26 2 72 20 52 25 3 63 19 44 32 5 39 14 38 1 37 51 12 57 5 52 39 4 34 5 58 2 56 35 ] 59 7 52 37 4 8 0 86 37 49 13 1 88 39 49 13 0 5 38 14 51 16 35 37 13 53 20 33 34 13 State Gr 8 40 19 42 3 39 40 18 42 4 38 41 18 State HS 1 73 1 29 1 44 21 5 71 1 27 1 44 23 5 71 29 42 24 5 l Adv=Advanced/Prof=Proficient/NI=Needs Improvement/W=Warning(Foiling) 1 2016 English Language Arts / PARCC Results PARCC Achievement Levels Level 1=Did not yet meet expectations Level 2=Partially met expectations Level 3=Approached expectations iLevel 4=Met expectations Level 5=Exceeded expectations m 2016 'n English Language Arts / PARCC 2015 (Percentage of indents,by school and grade level,at each achievement score level) ryap. t s Level LevelLevel Level Level 2016 2015' 1 2 3 4 5 Levels eel aero, vamwy aPproo[bed met uremed 4&5 4&5 'tmee, met rxcana,bra espeRrtWn upettatloni Mer Me,ar Excaesed eit"no.ns erpenotlmr ...Exex�lw n bsnYotions '.:FxOUnWsons Barrows Grade 0 4 21 65 10 75 69 Grade 0 0 18 60 22 82 68 Grade 3 5 32 56 3 59 77 Birch Meadow Grade 2 7 16 69 5 74 53 Grade 4 1 4 20 53 21 74 73 Grade 5 3 23 54 SS 69 73 Eaton Grade 3 6 19 32 36 5 41 44 Grade 5 7 28 49 11 60 75 Grade 5 1 4 11 74 9 83 79 Killam Grade 4 8 19 58 30 68 57 Grade 4 3 7 23 53 15 68 65 Grade 2 9 19 56 14 70 78 Wood End Grade 3 8 1 8 13 56 15 71 65 Grade 4 2 3 27 55 14 69 71 Grade 5 0 2 16 77 5 82 72 Coolidge Grade 2 3 16 62 17 79 72 Grade? 3 4 11 42 40 82 ,... 83 , Grade 8 7 2 8. 45 39 84 73S Parker Grade 1 6 14 55 24 79 80 Grade? 1 2 11 47 39 86 80 Grade 3 6 13 61 17 78 75 Distritt(RP5) Grade 3.9 3 5 17 55 20 75 72 (See next page for Math results) 2 2016 Mathematics / PARCC Results PARCC Achievement Levels Level I=Did not yet meet expectations Level 2=partially met expectations Level 3=Approached expectations Level 4=Met expectations Level =Exceeded expectations 016 Mathematics / PARCC 2015 q keruntage of students,by school and grade level,at each achiELeyel e level) avos Level Level Level Level 1016 2015 1 2 4 5 Lexcl, te�els al Pmmly ad4& 5 4&5 yetral /IM! Pvpe[MNMS Pxpa[fO'We Mato, Metor aryenexe,v exxxxxiom Veye4" Fxreetletl Fxpe[tofions FxPe[tatiom Barrows a.&3 0 6 10 52 33 85 72 Grade 2 5 15 71 8 79 67 Grades 3 15 29 50 3 53 52 Birch Meadow Grade 0 7 16 62. 15 77 60 Grade 1 9 29 53 9 62 71 Grade 5 5 6 15 66 8 74 58 Eaton Grade 9 10 22 44 14 58 54 C Grade 0 13 28 46 14 60 60 Grade 3 6 19 63 9 72 73 Killam Grade 0 4 19 53 23 76 50 Grade4 1 11 31 50 7 57 53 Grade 0 1 14 26 53 7 60 1 62 Wood End Grade 8 5 13 1 56 18 75 69 Grade 3 11 35 45 5 50 65 Grade 0 5 16 63 16 79 85 Coolidge Grade 1 3 21 54 20 74. 65 Grade? 4 9 17 47 23 70 65 Grade 9 6 16 52 18 70 66 Gr 8 Algebra 0 0 0 22 78 100 100 Parker Grade 1 8 17 58 16 74 77 Grade 1 5 28 54 13 67 65 Grade 7 8 27 55 3 58 59 Gr8 Algebra1 0 0 0 59 41 100 100 District tRPSI Gratle3-8 3 8 21 54 15 69 65 (See next page far SGP information) 3 Reading Public Schools Student Growth Percentiles(SGP)/Composite Performance Index(CPI) Student Growth Percentile(SGPI:Massachusetts measures growth for individual students by comparingthe change in their achievement on statewide assessments to that of their"academic peers"(all other students in the state who previously had similar historical assessment results). The state defines moderate(or expected)growth to be between the 40-60 percentile, with low growth as below the 4&percentile and high growth as above the 6&percentile. Composite Performance Index(CPI): A 100-point index that assigns 100,75,50,25,oro paints to each student based on their performance. The total points assigned to each student are added together and the sum is divided by the total number of students assessed.The resulting CPI(a number between 0 and 100)for a district,school,or group Is then the measure of the extent to which students are progressing toward proficiency(a CPI of 1001. All groups(districts,schools,and subgroups) are expected to halve the distance between their level of performance in 2011 and proficiency by 2017,and improvement each year(even if falling short of the year's target)is an element of the OESE accountability formula. For each school,content area,and grade level,the below table summarizes the median Student Growth Percentiles(SGP) and the transitional Composite Performance Index(CPI)for the aggregate group(all students),generated using linked PARCC and WAS scores where applicable. For each content area In the below table,this 2016 data is In bold,and the 2015/2014 data is listed in the columns to the immediate right. English Language Arts/Mathematics Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) 2016 PARCC/2015 PARCC/ 2014 MCAS English Language Arts Mathematics' 2016PARCC 3016 PARCC 2015 PARCC/2014 MCAS 2015 PARCC)2014 MCAS 2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014 SGP SGP SGP SGP SGP SGP Barrows Grade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 60.5 54.0 47.0 51.5 83.0 62.0 Grade 31.0 62.0 42.5 30.0 46.0 48.0 Birch Grade N/A N/A N/A '.. N/A;'. N/A N/A Grade 58.5 62.0 46.0 '.54.0; .76.0 54.0 Grade 53.0 49.0 33.0' '. 49.0 62.0 30:0 Eaton Grade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 41.0 60.0 40.5 58.0 69.0 33.0 Grade 65.5 68.5 43.0 59.0 90.0 51.0 Killam .Grade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 55.0 44.5 49.0 50.0 47.0 64.0 Grade 64.0 53.5 44.0 1, '::54.0 48.0 46.0 Wood End Grade N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grade 56.0 50.5 36.5 31.0 64.0 37.0 Grade 47.0 67.0 45.5 78.0 93.0 63.5 Coolidge Grade 53.0 62.0 55.0 68.0 60.0 45.0 Grade 62.0 70.5 33.0 72.5 68.0 42.0 Grade 68.0 58.5 52.0 69.0 53.5 46.5 Algebra) N/A N/A N/A 70.0 84.0 N/A Parker Grade 67.0 65.0 56.5 72.0 73.0 66.0 Grade 56.0 69.0 45.0 57.0 54.0 48.0 Grade 45.0 48.0 47.5 29.0 33.0 40.0 Algebra I N/A N/A N/A 65.0 81.5 N/A (See next pagefor CPl and accountability information) 4 English Language Arts / Mathematics/ Science Composite Performance Index (CPI) 2016 PARCC/2015 PARCC/2014 MCAS .. . .- English Language Arts Mathematics Science 2016 1015 2014 2016 1015 2014 7016 2015 2034 CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI CPI Barrows Grade 95.7 90.6 87.1 95.7 93.0 80.2 N/A N/A N/A Grade 93.8 85.7 90.0 91.9 86.5 84.2 N/A N/A N/A Grade 5 91.1 93.8 93.0 83.1 84.6 90.0 77.8 84.3 89.3 Birch Grade 93.8 88.0 88.8 94.6 90.8 86.6 N/A N/A N/A Grade 87.2 87.7 87.9 86.1 88.5 87.9 N/A N/A N/A Grades 93.2 92.2 89.7 _915 89.9 80.2 82.6 84.3 82.1 Eaton Grade 80.5 84.0 88.1 85.4 85.1 88.1 N/A N/A N/A Grade 80.5 87.8 87.3 83.9 86.4 76.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade 94.7 94.1 88.9 91.8 94.1 85.8 83.1 92.1 82.1 Killam Grade 91.2 86.3 87.8 96.887.3 91.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade4 85.5 81.9 82.9 84.1 81.9 87.1 N/A N/A N/A Grade 90.6 91.1 91.0 89.8 91.9 88.4 79.5 85.1 81.7 Wood End Grade 3 89.1 89.1 88.8 89.1 92.6 87.5 N/A N/A N/A Grade 87.3 88.6 80.5 82.1 89.0 78.9 N/A N/A N/A Grade 96.1 89.5 88.5 95.2 95.3 86.9 90.4 88.7 85.3 Coolidge Grade 95.3 93.8 93.0 93.5 86.6 85.6 N/A N/A N/A Grade 7 94.1 . 92.4 93.0 85.1 84.3 83.7 N/A N/A N/A Grade 93.6 1 95.6 98.3 85.8 1 87.3 1 85.6 74.7 72.9 83.5 / Algebra N/A N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A Parker Grace 93.5 95.2 93.2 91.7 94.0 90.4 N/A N/A N/A Grace7 97.7 94.4 96.1 89.0 85.6 86.4 N/A N/A N/A Grade 94.7 96.8 95.9 83.6 82.1 80.3 84.1 83.2 83.3 Algebral N/A N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A District Accountability Data 2016 2015 2014 2016 PPI 2015 PPI 2014 PPI 2016 PPI 2015 PPI 2014 PPI District Accouatabillq' .Level Level Mswdmb /IISNIenh RII Stud-. Hig Neetls Nryb Neetls Nigh Neetls Level Reading PS Level 3 3 3 1 66 61 1 60 57 49 44 2016 School Amountabilhy Ail Massachusetts schools and districts with sufficient data are classified into Level one of five accountability and assistance levels(1-5), with the highest Barrows Level 2 performing in Level land lowest performing in Level 5. In general,a district is Birch Meadow Level 2 classified into the level of its lowest performing school,unless the district was Eaton Leve 33 Independently class/fied into Level 4 or 5 as o result of action by the Board of Klllam Level 2 Elementary and Secondary Education. The Cumulative Progress and - Wood End bwel2 Performance Index(PPI)combines information about narrowing proficiency Coolidge Level gaps,growth,and graduation and dropout rates overfour years into a single Parker Level 2 number between 0 and 100.For a group to be considered to be making progress RMHS Levell toward narrowing proficiency gaps,its cumulative PPI should be 75 or higher. I For more detail and information regarding each school's accountability classification and data,see the DESE website at: ht r les.doe.mass. a acmuntabill re o disWct.as x7linkld=30&or code-02460000&ort erode=58, 5 ora, °o Office of the Town Manager 781-942-9043 16 Lowell Street townmanaeer@ci.reading.ma.us Reading, MA 01867 www.readingma.gov/town-manager To: Board of Selectmen •�,/1 ,1(/ From: Robert W. LeLacheur,Jr.CFA Date: October22,2016 \J RE: Killam Field Project CC: Superintendent John Doherty and DPW&Public Services/Recreation town staff For the current fiscal year Town Meeting had approved a $350,000 capital project to improve the drainage and layout of the Killam fields, as well as to complete a paving project in the rear parking lot area.This project was scheduled to be completed during the summer 2017, so work would have begun next month. I am hereby using the authority granted to me under the Charter and cancelling this project effective immediately for the current fiscal year. I understand that to date there has been no financial expenditure on the project. These funds will therefore be used at April Town Meeting to balance any current fiscal year expenditures,or returned to Free Cash on lune 30,2017 if not needed. As I have mentioned previously,a combination of factors have led me to take this action, including: - the MSBA is re-evaluating all schools in the state, and Killam may become an active building project If state-matching funds appear. Right now, a Killam building project is listed on the Capital Plan but there is no specific time frame.Next week the MSBA begins visits to the Reading schools, but we may not have any answer for several months. A building project would at a minimum probably take 3-5 years, but it would be foolish to do work that might be for naught that quickly; - two of the four key town staff positions that would oversee this project are currently vacant, and the hiring freeze I established late last summer continues. Other project work is a higher priority as we work short-handed; - the expected near-term settlement of RMHS construction litigation requires a rearranged capital plan, where recreation capital as well as some DPW equipment and Facilities work will be delayed into the future. The capital plan that will formally be submitted to November Town Meeting is therefore already out of date, and a revised version will be submitted as part of the FY18 budget process; and - the failure of the Override last week will require us to examine all proposed expenses that do not cover essential services for the community. The revised capital plan will show this project rescheduled out In FY23. This date will be flexible depending on the situation with the Killam Elementary School as well as our future financial condition.