|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
BUDGET WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:08
p.m.
Robertson School Cafeteria |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Crockett, Golas, Hackett, Huyler, Rizzo, Stafford ABSENT: Edwards, Rowe, Small-Miller ALSO A1.
Call to Order A2.
Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Hackett mentioned that a few Board members were missing due to personal emergencies and deferred Item B. Approval of the January 24, 2006 Budget Workshop minutes to the next Budget Workshop. She reminded the public that this is a Personnel and Finance Committee, and not a regular Board meeting, and this committee will run the workshop. She mentioned that the next Budget Workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, February 8, 2006, to be held in the Robertson School cafeteria from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. C. PUBLIC
COMMENTS D. Opening
Remarks E. Budget Discussion Title Funding The Superintendent asked Ms Linda Gejda, the Math, Science, and Technology Supervisor and Ms. Kate England, the PreK Language Arts Supervisor to come forward and review the grant funding in Manchester. Ms. England gave her PowerPoint presentation first and highlighted the following topics: Early Reading Success (Competitive)
Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Title I: Improving Basic Programs
Mr. Stafford asked if it would be reduced even more when Bennet is taken off-line. Ms. England said that it will not, as the funding will remain consistent as they will still have the same number of students who are eligible for Title I funding, as the funding is based upon census data for the district. Mr. Rizzo
asked if the funding from the Federal Government is being reduced to
the State, and Ms. England responded that it is, and that is primarily
why the funding went down this year from last year. Ms. Linda Gejda continued the discussion with her PowerPoint presentation, which highlighted the following topics: Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality
Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology
Title III: Language Acquisition and Language Enhancement
Title IV: Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
Title V: Innovative Programs
ESEA: Non-Public
Funding: Carl Perkins
Grant (Middle/High School)
MCC Tech
Prep Grant
Grants:
Summary
Mr. Golas asked how much approximately overall, in dollar figures, are we missing this year for entitlements. Ms. Gejda said approximately $1.3 to $1.4 million dollars for the grants that she mentioned this evening. Mr. Crockett asked about Goal III, that all students by 2005-06 would be taught by highly qualified teachers, and asked for a definition of a highly qualified teacher. The Superintendent mentioned that in the Board's packet from the first budget workshop on Jan. 24th is an explanation from Mr. Martin, Interim Human Resources Director, called the HOUSSE Plan, which speaks about highly qualified teachers. Ms. Gejda stated that the Federal Government has set the qualifications for a highly qualified teacher, so each state must meet those standards. The teacher has to have certification, or have a degree in, the subject matter that he or she is teaching, or they have passed an exam in that subject matter. At the elementary level, the teacher is certified in elementary education and also in each of the areas that person is teaching in. The Superintendent mentioned that HOUSSE stands for High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation. Mr. Rizzo mentioned that the Title I Grant funds half of all of the Literacy Facilitators, and asked if the other half is funded out of the Board's Operating Budget. Ms. England said that it is funded out of the Operating Budget, with the exception of Washington School where the entire salary and benefits for one Literacy Facilitator is funded out of the Early Reading Success Grant. Mr. Rizzo mentioned that even thought these grants are called Entitlements; the Board still needs to apply for them. Ms. England said that applying for the grants is a very time consuming process, and that the State Department of Education reads every grant application very carefully. She mentioned that the amount of grant money that the State determines each town is entitled to apply for is based on poverty need in each district, and Manchester bases its percentage of poverty on free and reduced lunch numbers. Mr. Rizzo
asked if the two district wide numeracy trainers are also classroom
teachers, and Mr. Rizzo asked what the Grants Administrator does. Ms. Gejda explained that the Grants Administrator, such as Mr. Tony Gasper, is the go-to person for the State, or whomever, to make sure that person can provide information to them. This person knows the curriculum, the needs and the goals of the various departments he or she works with, and they also work with the staff at each of the buildings to make sure that what he or she is doing, also fits in with what the staff is doing. Ms. Brooks shared with the Board that with Title I, Manchester also has to prove that they are funding as many positions with the district's budget. The Board cannot say that they want these Literacy Facilitators in the schools and not be funding equal positions. This shows that Manchester is not supplanting the budget. If a Non-Title I school has five reading teachers, the budget has to show that it has more than five teachers at a Title school.
Ms. Tait mentioned to the Board and the public that this presentation is an overview of a proposal of a pilot for an Alternative to Expulsion Program, and details still need to be worked out. It will be presented at the next Curriculum and Instruction Committee meeting. It is being presented tonight because start up funding has been asked for in the budget. The Superintendent mentioned that the long-term goal is a significant cost savings to the district. Mr. Bruce Thorndike, Principal at Manchester Regional Academy (MRA), gave his PowerPoint presentation called Alternative Education in Manchester Public Schools: Building A Strong Continuum, which highlighted the following topics: Objectives of Presentation
Current Educational Options in Manchester
Concerns
Proposal
Program Structure
Program Components
Staffing
Funding
Request:
$129,560 start up costs
Mr. Stafford mentioned the 8-10 certified teachers for a program of 24-30 students, a ratio of 1 to 3, and asked why that is needed. Mr. Thorndike said that technically that's true, but in a given classroom there would probably be 8-10 students, and given the schedule of the program, the teachers would not all be working at the same time, which is why that many teachers would be needed. Ms. Tait stated that they would need vocational teachers and academic teachers in Math, Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts. These teachers would be paired with the special education teachers so they can service both populations together. It is a team teaching type of model, and not all of the teachers would be there at the same time. The Superintendent mentioned that these are not full time positions, but they are all highly qualified teachers, as compared to tutors at the New Horizon's program. Ms. Tait mentioned that some staff from MRA and the high school have expressed interest in teaching in the program. The hope is to staff this program with as many of the district's own teachers as possible, so the transition back into the main stream for these students will be that much easier, as there would be a connection already established between student and teacher. Ms. Hackett asked if this program is leading to abandoning expulsions as we know them, and does this lower the threshold for expelling students. The Superintendent explained that there are certain standards that the district must uphold, by the statute, with the severity of the behavior that may occur on campus, in school, or out of school. Those are very clear cut and laid out in the statute. She mentioned that with some of the gray areas, as to whether a child should be expelled or not, the State has notified the district that they are on the high side. Ms. Tait talked about incidents in the past few years of students with alcohol, whereby getting them into this type of program they could receive counseling on substance abuse, which is far better than expelling them and having them on the street with no counseling. She mentioned that the program is for both expelled students and those headed for expulsion. The difference is, if a child is expelled they are allowed to go only to this program, The students headed towards expulsion, if they get their grades up and their behavior up, they can continue to do sports, drama, etc. at their home school, as well as attend this program. These students would be in the program together. Youngsters, who would not be put in the program, are those who bring weapons into school, such as loaded guns, knives, etc. Those children would still be expelled out-of-district or put on homebound tutoring. Ms. Tait stated that there are not too many of those types of incidents, there are more children up for expulsion who have been suspended many times for defiance of school rules, truancy, not serving detentions, fighting, etc. Ms. Hackett mentioned she would like the Board to have a more full presentation of this program, and Ms. Tait said that the plan is to present it to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and then to the Board. Ms. Hackett asked what is an average out-of-district placement cost for a middle or high school student. Ms. Tait stated about $17,000 for a 4-hour program and $30,000 for a full day program, and she feels we can do a better job in-house, where we could match it to the district's curriculum with the district's expectations. She mentioned that it would save the district money, and the district could do more for the children by having them in district. The Superintendent mentioned that a full presentation would be on the agenda for the February 27th Board meeting. Mr. Rizzo stated that it was mentioned that the savings from closing the New Horizons program would be $163,000, but said it was not broken down to show the amounts saved for home bound tutoring and return of students from out-of-district placements. Ms. Tait said it is hard to predict at this point in the year, as most of the expulsions usually happen more in the spring when the weather is better. She expects that they might be able to bring 3 to 4 students, who are special needs and who are placed out, back into district, so at an average of $15, 000 per student that comes out to a savings of $45, 000 to $60,000, plus additional savings with the cost of transportation. She stated that there are not too many children on homebound tutoring now. Ms. Hackett asked how many repeat expulsions there are each year, and Ms. Tait responded saying the number is low, with only two repeats this year, although we didn't use to have any, so this is very much of a concern. Special Education Tuition Ms. Jen Tait gave her PowerPoint presentation titled Department of Student Support Services and highlighted the following topics: Ms. Tait explained that the Department of Student Support Services encompasses Special Education, MRA, Social Work, Nursing, Psychology, Speech/Language, Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Guidance, and Assistive Technology. Considerations
Corrective Actions
Results of Current Initiatives
Full Inclusion
Learning Center - partial inclusion
Separate Program - limited inclusion
Anecdotal Results
Ms. Tait thanked the Board of Education for supporting the initiatives; the Superintendent and all the administrators for working so hard over the last two years; the parents who have supported and challenged changes as they happen; the teachers who rose wonderfully to the challenge of massive new learning; and SERC and CSDE for the grants, training, and technical support. Accelerated Middle School Ms. Tait also presented on Accelerated Middle School, which highlighted the following topics: Staff Transfers
Requests for New Staff
General Budget Increases
Budget for Visually Impaired
Tuition Assumptions for 06-07
Placing Students
Parent Choice
Why Does Manchester Public Schools Place Students?
Understanding Special Education Budget Lines #5561 and 5563
IDEA Sliver Grant 04-06 - $25,000
IDEIA 2004 - Nonpublic Schools
Private Schools in Manchester
Child Find - Private Schools
Child Find Costs
IDEIA and Non Public Schools
Ms. Huyler asked about the private school element, and asked how new that was. Ms. Tait said it started July 1, 2005. Ms. Huyler asked Ms. Tait to elaborate on what "service those children" means. Ms. Tait stated that when she wrote the IDEA grant for this year, it was based on the children that she knew in June. When the law went into effect in July, she didn't know the children who were from other towns at that point. The new grant that she will write in May of 2006, will include those children, so there will be more taken out of the public school funding to provide for more children in the private schools. Ms. Hackett asked about the non-residents who attend parochial schools in Manchester and if we provide special education services such as PPT's. Ms. Tait responded saying we do all the PPT's. We have a dual certified person in special education and speech/language that works in the parochial schools and can do two of the assessments. Manchester designs the Individual Educational Plan (IEP). Answers to Questions from the January 24, 2006 Budget Workshop - Superintendent Ouellette The Superintendent mentioned that she had answers to questions that were asked at the last budget workshop, which she provided in a handout to Board members. One, in particular, was the job description developed for the Dean of Students position, which, as stated by Mr. Sierakowski, is very similar to the job description for a Vice Principal at the secondary level. She stated that the job description was provided in a handout to them. The Superintendent mentioned that she also provided the Board members with a copy of the NEASC 5-year budget plan that was requested. The Superintendent mentioned that they are still researching, throughout the State, the possibility of a grant writer on staff. She stated that Kate England is in the process of contacting other districts to obtain names of possible grant writers in the area, and to see if they have grant writers in their district. The preliminary summary of her findings is that grant positions seem to fall into two categories - writers and managers, with managers writing and managing the grant money, and they are paid like administrators. She noted that some districts combine a grant position with other responsibilities. Putnam School District, for example, combines a grant manager and a professional development coordinator. West Haven combines a grant manager with a BEST Coordinator and a Title I Director. Ms. England is still waiting to hear back from a few other districts, and a further update will be given at the next budget workshop. The Superintendent mentioned the public comment about a field trip at the last budget workshop, and told the members that they have a memo in their packet from Buckley Principal Holly Maiorano that addresses it. She stated that the memo was also sent out to the concerned citizen as well. The Superintendent stated that there was also a concern about the transportation with the accelerated middle school program, and that Mrs. Brooks and her staff ran the numbers and feel that only one additional bus will be required to transport all 7th and 8th graders to Illing, and 6th graders from Robertson to Bowers, and 6th graders from Nathan Hale to Buckley. The Superintendent stated there was a request for an explanation regarding the technology budget and that will be presented at the next Budget Workshop on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, as well as a sketch of the accelerated project. The full presentation of the accelerated project will be given at the February 15th Board of Education meeting. F. Questions and Answers The Superintendent brought to the Board's attention the Board of Education policy #3110, with regards to the timeline in submitting the budget and adopting the budget. The policy states that the budget needs to be adopted on or before February 11, 2006, and that the final budget workshop is on February 9, 2006. The final budget needs to be submitted to the General Manger by February 21, 2006. She asked if the Board wanted to scheduled a special meeting to adopt the budget, and asked for their recommendation.
Ms. Hackett said that after talking with members of her caucus, they expressed an interest in having a special meeting on Feb. 8th, following the budget workshop. However, after considering it, she felt it would be better to digest any new information brought up at the Feb. 8th budget workshop and have a special meeting at a different time. Mr. Rizzo suggested scheduling a special meeting for February 9, 2006 to adopt the budget. Ms. Hackett and Mr. Rizzo decided to confer with their caucus on this issue and get back with the Superintendent on a schedule. The Superintendent advised the Board that she was not sure of the availability of facilities or videotaping, but will provide the Board with a recording of the meeting for the purpose of minutes. The Superintendent asked the Board for permission to put Consent Items on the agenda at the special meeting, and Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Hackett said that would be acceptable. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1) Melissa
Dumont, 9 Hendee Road. Ms. Dumont mentioned magnet schools and that
she was unclear for the special needs children. She was under the understanding
that the Board does not pay when this type of child attends a magnet
school. Ms. Tait said it depends on the magnet school. If it is a magnet
school such as Two Rivers, Great Path, etc. there is a tuition. If it
is a host magnet in a Hartford school, there is no tuition. Ms. Dumont
also had questions on Title I funding, and stated that it was mentioned
that substitutes fall under that category, and she wondered if those
substitutes fall under the provision of highly qualified teachers as
well. 2) Sheri
Pelletier, 145 Park Street. Ms. Pelletier asked Ms. Tait for clarity
regarding the parochial schools and the contributions that are made
under the IDEA 611 grant. Ms. Tait said that the parochial schools could
ask for services through the special education process. 3) Tom
Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. Mr. Stringfellow mentioned that he
supported the presentation given by Ms. Gejda and Ms. England and that
it was a good overview. He was impressed with the information about
teacher and professional staff training. He hoped they 4) Keith Carson, 45 Kane Road. Mr. Carson asked for clarification on the Alternative Expulsion Program and teacher positions, and whether these positions will be held by teachers already in the district who are interested in doing this work, or will they be new positions. Ms. Tait said they are not contracted positions, that they are hourly reporting positions, and they are hoping that staff currently employed will be interested in them. There are people who currently only work part time, because of child rearing responsibilities, and might be interested in these positions since they are late afternoon and evening hours, and this might be a good option for them. Mr. Carson asked if a full time employee worked this position, if the hours would become overtime. Ms. Brooks responded saying that teachers couldn't be paid overtime, that they are exempt, so it would be an additional hourly rate but not time and a half. Mr. Carson asked how many long term substitute teachers there are, and do we have to be concerned about them being certified. The Superintendent said that they do have to be certified and that there are certain guidelines that have to be followed, that Human Resources could provide that information. Mr. Carson asked about a list of all the grants that the district receives, and if that list has been published. Ms. Brooks said that there would be a new section in the budget book that will list the grants and their budgets. G. Closing
Comments The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Golas,
Secretary |