|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
BUDGET WORKSHOP TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:05
p.m.
Robertson School Cafeteria |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Crockett, Edwards, Golas, Hackett, Rizzo, Rowe, Small-Miller, Stafford ABSENT: Hyler ALSO A1.
Call to Order A2.
Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Hackett welcomed everyone to the January 24, 2006 Budget Workshop. She explained that the Personnel and Finance Committee will run the workshop, and it is Co-chaired by Mr. Mike Rizzo and Mr. John Rowe. She stated that the Board hopes to entertain the public's questions during the public comment sessions of the meeting, which are at the beginning of the meeting and one at the end of the meeting. Ms. Hackett asked the public to limit their questions to ones that are relative to the budget. She mentioned that the next Budget Workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, February 1, 2006, to be held in the Robertson School cafeteria from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. B. Approval of Minutes from the January 19, 2006 Budget Workshop MOTION: Rizzo/Crockett v.s. The Board of Education approved the minutes from the January 19, 2006 Budget Workshop. 7/0/1 (Mr. Golas abstained) C. PUBLIC
COMMENTS Mr. Edwards called for a point-of-order through the Chair of the meeting, and asked that the commentator hold his remarks to budget comments only, since it was a budget workshop and not a regular Board of Education meeting. D. Opening Remarks Mr. Rizzo mentioned that he had no opening remarks, and asked if Mr. Rowe had any. Mr. Rowe said he had nothing to say at this point, and asked for the Superintendent to take over. E. Budget Discussion New
England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) Mr. Sierakowski thanked the Board for the opportunity to discuss with them the implications of the NEASC budget that he proposed and was included in the Superintendent's Recommended Budget. He explained that NEASC is an accreditation agency, one of six in the country that is responsible for accessing the adequacy of secondary school programs, and in some cases, middle school or elementary school programs, but to a much smaller degree. Their responsibility is to ensure that students, regardless of where they come from, will have access to an appropriate educational preparation. He further stated that in that regard, they are not terribly dissimilar from the Connecticut Department of Education or any other accrediting agency. However, their responsibility, because of their regional orientation, is much greater. He stated that Manchester have a good history with them and their counterparts. Mr. Sierakowski explained that when he talks about meeting the NEASC recommendation standards, he is not talking about a small group of people that are going to decide whether or not the high school is good or bad. They are a group of highly paid professionals who are responsible for looking at the latest research, and then making recommendations to school districts about their needs to meet the accreditation standards. He stated that the high school was last accredited in 1999, and NEASC made a number of recommendations. In the last two years, with the Board's support and the work of the high school staff, they have made tremendous progress towards meeting the new standards of accreditation. He stated that in the next few months there will be a new set of requirements that is very similar in nature to the essence of NEASC, and that will be coming forth from the Commissioner for the State Department of Education's committee, to develop the framework for the new Connecticut high school. He stated that it is a solid research effort. Mr. Sierakowski went over the four areas that NEASC has sited as areas where the high school needs attention. The first is staffing. He explained that in the last five years the population at the high school has increased by 12%. Staff should have increased by 16-19 people. With the help of the Board and last year's budget, they have attained half of that increase in one year. He stated that it is very important because it effects student achievement. This year's proposed budget has a number of staff positions in it, most of which will go to the high school as a result of transfers with the restructuring of Bennet Middle School. The second area NEASC focused on was classroom supplies and equipment. He explained that over the course of many years, the supplies and equipment budget yielded the same general effect as the building structural budget, in that cuts were made, or very limited increases were provided. As a result, in all instructional areas the supplies in the building have suffered. They have enough to get by, but supplies have to be shared. He explained that he has provided the Superintendent and Business Manager a 5-year plan for the budget of what it would take for the high school to come to a mid-level of preparation for the standards and expectations of NEASC, and also of what the high school expects for their students. The third is professional development. Mr. Sierakowski stated that this year, for the first time in at least three years, they actually had a professional development budget at the high school. He explained that even though the current budget is in a freeze, the Business Manager had managed to release some funds for certain priority professional development, one of which is having the high school staff go out to serve on NEASC visiting committees in other districts, giving them first hand information about the application of the current standards. The last area of concern is the library. Mr. Sierakowski explained that they purchased 8,000 volumes in the last year. The money for the use at the high school library, accrued to the high school after the spring budget thaw, was money that would have been in their per pupil allocation but was redirected as the budget came into balance. He said that it made an incredible difference for the high school, and a substantial increase in books is now available for the students. He mentioned that circulation of the volumes among the students is very high. Mr. Sierakowski further explained that NEASC does not talk about specific items that the high school needs to buy, but rather they talk about general areas of concern that they have. The past letters from NEASC center on community resources for learning, having to do with space, teaching staff, the library, adequate instructional supplies, and electives. Mr. Rowe asked about the textbooks and what types of books are they trying to get. Are they getting just general interest books or specific types of books that the library needs to meet the NEASC accreditation? Mr. Sierakowski answered saying that NEASC's initial assessment will be based on the number and types of books in the collection, as reported by the high school library staff. The staff is responding to their recommendations by examining their professional library association accreditation standards, and ensuring that the high school has the appropriate distribution of fictional, non-fictional, research materials, non-print curriculum, and software, as that is becoming a major concern. Mr. Rowe asked how many more volumes are needed by 2009. Mr. Sierakowski stated that by the time they finish getting the books in, they will be at a library volume approaching 30,000 volumes, which will put them at almost the midpoint in their ERG as based on the last strategic school profile. The Superintendent mentioned that at the first budget workshop there were questions and some discussion regarding the Dean of Students' position. She asked Mr. Sierakowski to highlight some of the points of this position and how it relates to the high school. Mr. Sierakowski responded saying that the goal of the Dean of Students position is an additional half time administrator who would report to the ninth grade principal. As they look at how to structure this position, they are also looking at how they will structure the school when they open the new addition. He stated the position is important because currently, the ninth grade principal has approximately 687 students assigned to her, and that is not realistic. He feels it is important if they are to help students who are having difficulties, and this position is targeted to help ninth grade students who are not successful the first time around. This person will help those students get to a point where they are comfortable, confident, and successful. Mr. Rowe asked about the qualifications needed for this position. Mr. Sierakowski responded saying that this person would require administrative certification. Mr. Edwards asked if this position has a job description developed as yet. Mr. Sierakowski stated that the job description is really that of a grade level principal's position. The person will do exactly what a grade level principal does, focusing on general educational obligations to the high school, as well as those repeating ninth graders who are at risk. Mr. Edwards asked how it would be staffed, will it be literally someone who works half time, and will it be someone with another half time responsibility. Mr. Sierakowski stated that they do not have anyone with another half time position at the high school, but there is nothing to preclude any of those options. It could be someone who is looking to work half time, or someone who is looking to teach half time and be an administrator half time. The details will be worked out once they know if the position is approved. Mr. Edwards asked about a student late bus, and asked if Mr. Sierakowski knew when we last had one. Mr. Sierakowski said he had no memories of one. He stated that the late bus is not an activity late bus, but designed to provide some options for students who are staying for extra help. It is not a detention late bus, and they won't know how much it is used until they actually use it. Ms. Hackett
mentioned that Mr. Sierakowski came before the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee and talked about NEASC initiatives, and asked about the 5-year
budget plan that he had developed for NEASC. She asked if the Board
could get a copy of it, as well as make sure the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee is aware of the importance of these initiatives. Ms. Hackett asked about the Dean of Students and if Mr. Sierakowski sees this individual working exclusively with freshman. Mr. Sierakowski stated that person would be working with freshman, almost entirely. The Superintendent asked Ms. Tait to comment on the readjustments made with regards to the high school. She reminded the Board that previously they attempted to structure a part time position at the high school in the capacity of an administrator, as well as at the Bentley Alternative School. Ms. Tait commented saying that in the past, they were able to use the administrative position at Bentley partly for Bentley and partly for other things, such as equity supervision and as a principal in another building. When that was done there was a head teacher at Bentley, but this year that did not happen, so when the principal is not at Bentley there is no one to step in. Children take advantage of such a situation, and that is why they needed to move the administrator back into Bentley from a part time administrator to a supervisor. The Superintendent mentioned that if they were able to find a lead teacher or staff member at Bentley who could fill that role, they would certainly make that adjustment again, but at this time they had to reorganize. Ms. Small-Miller said that it was mentioned that the ninth grade principal is responsible for some 600 students, and asked if that is too many. Mr. Sierakowski stated that it is more than some high schools with two or three principals would have. The amount of individualization of attention, both on the academic and disciplinary side, are much greater because the options are greater. Ms. Small-Miller asked if other students in other grades need help, and will the Dean of Students be responsible to help these other grade students with similar needs as well. Mr. Sierakowski commented saying yes, and he also mentioned that all the administrators at the high school have responsibilities other than just working with students. Ms. Small-Miller asked if there was any individual at the high school that could take on these additional responsibilities, or divide them among all the administrators. Mr. Sierakowski stated that the load for the administrators is similar to the load for teachers. Mr. Crockett questioned the salary of the .4 science teacher of $16,231 as compared to a .4 music teacher with a salary of $28,522, and asked if there is more money in teaching music than science. He mentioned that the full time math teacher's salary is $46, 092. He stated that he thought teachers were paid the same. Ms. Brooks stated that the .4 positions are people who are already working, so it would be an additional .4 of their salary, which is based on degrees and years of working in the district. Mr. Crockett mentioned that we could possibly start fresh and hire at the 1st step, and Ms. Brooks agreed with him. Mr. Rizzo mentioned that, to some degree, the closing of Bennet is actually helping the high school with the transfer of teachers. He hopes they are not temporary positions, and asked how they will be squeezed in. Mr. Sierakowski said that some of the common areas will be used for study halls on a temporary basis, and Superintendent Ouellette mentioned that there is a good chance that the transferred teachers would remain in place at the high school, that the teachers would not be reassigned to the 6th Grade Academy, as their certification would not be a good fit. Mr. Rizzo mentioned that he has talked about the library volumes with community members, and they wonder why there is a need for more books when we have the Internet, and he asked if NEASC has adjusted their expectations in light of new technology. Mr. Sierakowski stated that NEASC is studying it now, but that there is still a need for nonfiction material, and they need to make these books accessible to the students. Mr. Rowe mentioned that the salary of $46,000 is a lot of money for a part time position of Dean of Students for four hours of work. He asked if a full time position would then cost $92,000. The Superintendent responded saying she does not see it as an hourly employee, as the individual would attend evening functions as well. Mr. Rowe asked if this position would fall under the Administrators' contract, and if that contract limits the hours of work. Mr. Sierakowski said it would be under the Administrators' contract, but there is not a limit on the number of hours an administrator can work. Superintendent Ouellette asked the Board to adjust the agenda and have Ms. Monica Giglio come forward at this time to give her presentation on the Bi-Lingual Position. Bi-Lingual Position Ms. Giglio presented some basic information regarding the law on the need for the Bi-Lingual position, and why Manchester is going to be required to hire someone for the district for the development of a Bi-Lingual program. She stated that according to the Connecticut General Statutes, all eligible students must be identified in the district by a set test, which is the Language Assessment Scales Links Test. This has been in place, but the State has recently changed it. The test is given every spring, and based on those figures it is determined if the student is Limited English Proficient (LEP). If Manchester Public Schools reaches twenty students, in one building, who are LEP, we are then required to offer some sort of program for these students to guarantee their access to the same education as every student in Manchester has. She stated that we have reached that number for Spanish speaking students, and the numbers are growing in many elementary schools. Ms. Giglio mentioned that there are seventeen countries represented at the high school in her course load alone, which represents close to thirty-eight languages and dialects. They are not getting the attention they need at this time, as the program now runs on tutors, alone, at all of the schools, except Manchester High School. These tutors service as many as thirty-three students for a maximum of twenty-five hours a week, which does not give equal access to each of these students. Mr. Rowe asked if it is mainly at the high school that the Bi-Lingual teacher would be needed. Ms. Giglio responded saying no, that the numbers are too diverse. Mr. Rowe asked if the teacher would then be roving. Ms. Giglio stated that the teacher would have to service students at the elementary level, and ideally it would be better to keep the teacher in one building and bring the students to one central place. Ms. Hackett asked if the tutoring takes place after school. Ms. Giglio said no, that the tutoring takes place during the day, in each elementary school and each middle school. Only two schools share a tutor, as their numbers are relatively small. Ms. Hackett asked Ms. Giglio to share some information on how the program has been successful, or what the remaining challenges are and what needs to be looked at. Ms. Giglio explained that the program was started a while back to address a need that Manchester was facing. It was an informal program that was started based on needs, not on mandates by the State. Things have changed over the years and the data collection now is enormous. She stated there are new testing requirements, new reporting requirements, and there are strict accommodations that are brought to them by the State for CMT and CAPT tests. Students use to be exempt up to a certain point, now they have to take them after they have been in any school for a total of ten months. Also professional requirements for certification have changed drastically. Mr. Edwards thanked her for explaining the process. He asked if there would be any value in bringing these students together to learn English for an intense but short term, three to four hours a day, and then immersing them in the classroom. Ms. Giglio stated that as far as intensive language learning goes, basic competency is a two to five year process, and it generally takes five to seven years for academic competence. This is researched based and a proven fact. Mr. Edwards stated that we are mandated to have a Bi-Lingual program because we have twenty students, in one building, speaking the same language, but if we had sixty students speaking thirty different languages, we would not be required. Ms. Giglio said that has been the case since 1975, and the logic behind that is once you have twenty students in one building; it becomes a significant number of kids who are not being served. Mr. Edwards asked if this Bi-Lingual program would be structured. Ms. Giglio said that has not been determined as yet, that they will need to talk with other school systems to see how they are handling their program. Mr. Edwards stated that whatever program is put into place, he feels it is important that the goal of the program is to teach students everything they need to know in terms of curriculum, and that they are able to learn it in English, as apposed to teaching them everything they need to know in the curriculum, regardless of language. He said it's important that these students graduate from Manchester High School speaking English. Ms. Giglio explained that the Bi-Lingual mandate is an old Federal mandate that ties in with NCLB, that there would be two programs that the parent chooses, as to which one they want their child to attend. There will be the English as a Second Language (ESL) program and a Bi-Lingual program, but there is a limit of thirty months that a child can be in the Bi-Lingual program, then the child must transition into an ESL program. If the student is already in high school and has less than three years to graduation, they must be in an ESL program. Ms Hackett asked if there would be any repercussions to the school district if it were deemed that the needs of some of these students were not serviced or met properly, and are there State sanctions for non-compliance. Ms. Giglio did not know what the exact sanctions would be, but said they do have to report to the State with progress reports on how the program development is coming along. Mr. Rizzo asked if tutors are bi-lingual, and Ms. Giglio said they are not. He asked what value was that to the student. Ms. Giglio said they learn basic vocabulary, survival skills, and what is happening in class. The tutor gives them a safe place where they can speak and not be laughed at or uncomfortable, and they are in a room with other students in the same situation. Mr. Rizzo thanked her for her presentation. Professional
Development Goal
Tied to Strategic Plan
Money Spent on Professional Development
Student Achievement
District Initiatives
Teachers are required:
Administrators are required:
Federal and State Mandates
Funding Examples:
Total for Professional Development: $77,730
Ms. Burgess mentioned that the Assistant Superintendent's office tracks the professional development requests. It also keeps records of the substitute teachers and the money spent by each school for substitutes. The substitute money is allotted to each school at the beginning of the year, which encourages principals to be selective in their use of the sub money. Ms. Burgess stated that in-services are professional development opportunities that happen in-district, and that training can be for a particular group, for example: grade level teachers, content area, or district wide. She stated that the in-service budget is $72,685, plus the professional development budget of $77,730, for a total of $849,985. Ms. Burgess explained some concerns, which included:
Ms. Burgess concluded her presentation stating that Manchester Public Schools will continue with their professional goals, that it strives to have safe and inclusive schools with excellence in teaching and learning, that it expects high achievement for all students, that it helps to empower students to continue to learn: developing academically and socially, and that it strives to create a learning community where all are welcome. Mr. Crockett asked if there is any required professional development for teachers to maintain their license. Ms. Burgess stated that teachers are required to have 90 hours of continuing education units (CEU's). He asked if we pay for that. Ms. Burgess said that some of the professional staff development money does go for that. Mr. Crockett asked if this is required by the State, and how many years do they have to obtain it. Ms. Burgess said they have five years to obtain it, and Ms. Tait stated the 90 hours has to be in specific content areas. Mr. Crockett asked what the approximate expenses are for a teacher to maintain the 90 hours. The Superintendent explained that it depends on the professional development within each site or location. She stated that it is very difficult to obtain the 90 hours in district over the five-year period, and a lot of the professional staff seeks other options outside the district that they personally pay for. Ms. Tait mentioned that by doing the professional development ourselves, we get to make sure that staff get the information in the areas that are critical to where we want to move the system. If we do pay for anything, it is first approved through the Assistant Superintendent's office. Ms. Hackett made a general comment in regards to a reoccurring theme from past discussions over the past years. She mentioned that there seems to be a deficit in the district of having people who can find and write grants, and even though she knows it could not happen for this budget season, she asked the administration to consider, for the long-term, and look at getting a grant writer on staff, as there seems to be a lot of unexplored money. Ms. Burgess stated that there are people that can be hired on a part time basis. She stated that grants are daunting and people are afraid to write them. She said it would be nice to have someone who would be a searcher of grants and a supporter of writing grants. The Superintendent said it is like writing a dissertation. She mentioned that Federal and State funding for grants are starting to dry up, and they would have to research how advantageous it would be for a central office position. The grants don't seem to be as plentiful as in years past. Ms. Burgess said there is a grant newsletter that might be beneficial to look into. Ms. Hackett said that maybe, on a trial basis, the administration could try to find a consultant to see if there is grant money out there that we could be exploring. Ms. Brooks said there are a lot of grants out there, and they are all private and take a lot of time to write, but a good grant writer could be bringing in a lot of money into the district, and it could pay for that person's salary out of those grants. Mr. Edwards said that he assumed the professional development amount of $77,730 does not include the cost of the staff's time and the in-services. Ms. Burgess said it does not include the cost of the staff's time. Mr. Edwards asked how many in-service days are given to the staff. Ms. Burgess said that 4 days is a good estimate. He asked if all certified staff participated in these in-service days. Superintendent Ouellette said they do, as well as sometimes non-certified staff as well. He asked how many certified staff we have, and the Superintendent responded saying approximately 625. Mr. Edwards stated that the costs we are looking at are the costs of the materials, not the cost of the time. He calculated an approximate cost of $687,000 for all of the teachers to attend these in-service days, and he said that gets them closer to the 1% that the Board has always talked about. He stated that they may be doing a better job on professional development then they have thought in the past. At this time, Mr. Rizzo stated that the presentation on Title Funding will be moved to the February 1st Budget Workshop, due to the late hour. Answers to Questions from the January 19, 2006 Budget Workshop Ms. Brooks briefed the Board on several handouts that provided answers and clarification on subject matters discussed at the last budget workshop, which included the MEA Agreement, which states that teachers must notify Central Office of their intention to retire by January 15th of that school year; the Administrators' Contract, which states they have until March 1st of a school year to notify Central Office of their intention to retire; Per Pupil Allocation for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year as compared to the 2006-07 Fiscal Year; the various dues and fees that are paid from Object 5810; a sheet that listed all new positions on one page; information on School Focus for $5,100 for Bowers and Keeney Elementary Schools; information on Program Improvement for $513,500 for student computers, equity, and differentiation to assist young students with tutoring costs and CMT/CAPT preparation and MRA secretarial support for summer program; and explanation of the revised 3510 Account numbers, where the square footage was reduced at Bennet, additional classrooms were added at Martin, and portables were added to Bowers, Buckley, and Washington. The Superintendent asked Ms. Brooks if this makes an adjustment to the overall budget, and Ms. Brooks said it did by $79,649, and the overall total increase would then be 8.6%. F. Questions and Answers The Superintendent commented that at the next budget workshop on February 1, 2006, the agenda would include the following topics:
G. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1) Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. Mr. Stringfellow commented on Mr. Sierakowski's presentation on NEASC and mentioned an article in Family Circle Magazine regarding the communication gap and how to talk to your teen. He complimented Ms. Burgess on a good presentation and had several articles to give her that help with data. He also stated that the English as a Second Language program is important, and that we need parental feedback on it, as well as the importance of community involvement. 2) Sherry Kerran, 86 Barry Road. Ms. Kerran mentioned that the electric bill is going up 25%, and the Board's budget is only asking for a 14% increase and wondered why, and said that is something they should think about. She also mentioned a 3rd grade class trip to view Hartford, which was part of their curriculum at Buckley Elementary School last year. She stated that the Principal made an announcement saying there was no funding for field trips, and that the principal asked the PTA to help fund it. She said her son, who is in the 3rd grade, found out a week before the field trip was scheduled to take place that it was cancelled, as there were no funds available for field trips. She asked if this was part of the curriculum, then why was it not funded. Ms. Kerran also asked why only one additional bus is needed under the accelerated middle school project increases. She didn't think that seemed like enough. Ms. Brooks stated that the numbers had been worked out with the Transportation Coordinator for the Board, using the most current program. Superintendent Ouellette stated she will keep her concern in mind, and Ms. Brooks said she would look at the numbers again. Ms. Brooks commented on the electricity, saying it was reduced by Bennet being closed and off-line next year. 3) Cheri Pelletier, 145 Park Street. Ms. Pelletier talked about the Board's vision on student achievement, which mentions equal access to resources, promote family involvement and community partnerships, and preparing children for school. She stated that the information on the MELO Project has come out and how they are loosing their funding, and how the Board of Education is going to try to contribute to help save some aspects of the program. She said it is interesting since the Board's visions overlap with what is going on in that program. Ms. Pelletier pointed out that in the Board's budget it shows getting a remedial reading tutor, a nurse, a speech clinician, and bi-lingual position, and all of these aspects effect that program. She said there seems to be a lot of overlap, and maybe there is a better way that the MELO program could be incorporated into more of the positions that are needed in the schools, and share the services. The Superintendent mentioned that they have done some shared services with summer school. She stated that she met with Mary Roche Cronin this week concerning the MELO project, and they are looking to work together on it. Ms. Pelletier
talked about the $165,000 Fiber Optic lease, and asked if it is something
the Board is already contractually involved in. The Superintendent said
it is a Town obligation. Ms. Pelletier talked about the Dean of Students position, and said it was disconcerting to hear that guidance counselors are now being used for college prep and SAT and not the traditional guidance counselor type roles, and it seems that the position should be more of a social work role instead of an academic role. The Superintendent mentioned that there are social services in place at the high school that do provide that, and unfortunately, with all the paperwork attached with the NCLB legislation and the CAPT tests, the counselors are constantly accountable for the State and Federal mandates. She assured her that the guidance counselors meet with the students and counsel them as needed. 4) Gerald
Bujaucius, 88 Ambassador Drive. Mr. Bujaucius asked about the technology
increases and the cost of student computers at $500,000, and whether
this cost was for the acquisition of the computers only. He wanted to
know how many computers would be purchased, if they were preloaded with
software, and if there were any training costs, license fees, or disposal
costs included in this amount. He also wanted to know if the old computers
would be used somewhere else in the system. Mr. Bujaucius asked if an
asset management system had been looked at for this equipment, and what
will happen next year. The Superintendent stated that Ms. Linda Gejda
would be happy to provide a presentation on the technology funding at
a future budget workshop to answer all his questions. Mr. Bujaucius
asked if a current Technology Plan could be mailed to him. G. Closing
Comments MOTION: Edwards/Golas s.v. To adjourn: 9:27 p.m. 8/0/0 Respectfully submitted, David Golas,
Secretary |