Manchester Public Schools
Budget Workshop

February 02, 2005

7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.
Lincoln Center
Manchester, CT 06040

A. OPENING

PRESENT: Golas, Hackett, Lok, O'Neill (7:20), Rizzo, Thresher

ABSENT: Edwards, Robinson, Huyler

ALSO
PRESENT: Superintendent of Schools Ouellette, Director of Human Resources Attorney Libby, Director of Student Support Services Tait, Business Manager Brooks, Interim Assistant Superintendent Gejda

ABSENT: None

A. Opening

Mr. Golas called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. He introduced Mr. Rizzo and himself as co-chairmen of the Personnel and Finance Committee.

Mr. Golas led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Golas moved the approval of the minutes from the last meeting, January 25, 2005 to the end of the meeting. It was a friendly amendment that was agreed to by the Board members. He explained that past budget workshops did not include public comment. It has been added to this meeting at the beginning and the end. The same rules as normal Board of Education meeting apply. He invited the public to make comments on the budget.

C. Public Comments

None.

D. Opening Remarks

None.

E. Budget Discussion

Ms. Ouellette explained that there were three items for the second budget workshop. The first order of business is points of clarification by the Director of Business Operations, Mrs. Brooks and Attorney Libby.

Mrs. Brooks made a point of clarification to the public with regards to what has been reported as an additional percentage increase to the Superintendent's Recommended 2005-06 Budget. She explained that the Town and school district are well aware that change in the accounting of the revenue from the State for health insurance subsidy payments would distort the percentage increase in the budget the first year it was implemented. Fiscal year 2005-06 is the first year the district is implementing this accounting change. However, the change in the accounting practice has a zero dollar effect on the tax rate. Previously, the Town deposited the State reimbursement directly into their general fund, and the Board of Education's budget paid the entire insurance premium for retired certified staff. This accounting procedure overstated the Board's expenditures for health insurance, which will only happen in this budget.

Mr. Rizzo asked why the change only affects the 2005-06 budget and not going forward.

Mrs. Brooks stated last year, the full premium was in the Board's budget. This year, it is reduced by the anticipated subsidy the Board will receive from the State. The request for health insurance costs are a net of the insurance subsidy that will now be received.

Mr. Rizzo asked if in future years, the Board would continue to budget net for teacher's retirement.

Mrs. Brooks confirmed this statement.

Attorney Libby stated that a question was posed last week for more information regarding the Race Relations position that the high school has put forth. She stated that this position currently serves approximately half of the freshmen at the high school. By implementing a full time non-certified person to facilitate and coordinate the Race Relations program, the high school will be able to serve up to 700 students with 15 seminars per quarter. The responsibilities of this position include supervision of student and adult facilitators, coordination of enrollment and planning with counselors, communicating with support staff and leadership of students and adults in the program to ensure proficiency. There is a structured curriculum developed for this program and the position would report to one of the vice principals as assigned by the principal. This would essentially be able to expand the program with greater depth and exposure to all freshmen.

Mrs. Lok thanked Attorney Libby for the explanation and would like a written report regarding this information. Attorney Libby stated she would provide a report later in the week.

Mr. Rizzo asked if this position is included in the count of additional FTEs in the budget.

Attorney Libby stated that this is correct. The additional FTEs include 15.2 certified staff and 2.6 non-certified staff. This is proposed by the high school as a non-certified person. There is currently a .5 position assigned to this program.

Mrs. Lok asked if it was possible to end up with a certified staff member.

Attorney Libby stated that if this were a certified position, the cost to the Board would be significantly more expensive. The most appropriate certification for this position would be Social Studies.

Mrs. Lok asked if the report could include the cost for a certified position as well.

Ms. Ouellette invited Mrs. Tait, Director of Support Services, to present the Special Education budget.

Mrs. Tait stated she would review the background information of what is presented in the budget book. There are a lot of things that fall under Student Support Services. Special Education and the MRA budget are the largest portion, and others include social work, nursing, psychology, speech/language, physical therapy, occupational therapy, guidance and assistive technology. When the budget was developed, there were other considerations, including: the P.J. Settlement for students with Intellectual Disability; NCLB is terms of a subgroup that has difficulty in meeting standards because of learning needs; IDEA requirement including the Least Restrictive Environment; special education students having access to the general curriculum; data that shows a slight over identification in special education and a disproportionate identification for students of color; an achievement gap that is rather large; and a IDEA Sliver grant regarding the P.J. Settlement that has been available the last two years which most likely will not be available next year. The State Department has done some monitoring and Manchester has been notified that they must decrease the disproportionate identification; improve early intervention (EIP) for all students; increase time with non-disabled peers; and improve skills in differentiated instruction, modification, and accommodation. They have looked at how to move students back to their home schools and how to increase time with non-disabled peers. They have also asked for a new special education teaching position, particularly at Manchester High School and at the elementary level, as well as increased support in social work, paraprofessionals, tutors, clerical assistance for data entry, assistive technology and consultants. They need to increase the variety of evaluation tools to be able to evaluation more precisely the children's needs. Additionally, they need to increase support for teachers in terms of materials, computers, access to phones, texts and professional development. The actual requests in Student Support Services include 2 FTE Special Education teachers at the high school, with 2 teachers assigned to each core academic area. This will also provide additional instruction to regular education students as well. They are also asking to restore the position of the Special Education Department Head because of all the legal and scheduling issues involved. At the elementary level, they are asking for 3.5 FTE Special Education teachers. This will aid in children being in their home schools and with non-disabled peers. They are asking for 1.0 FTE in social work as well that will provide to 10 schools. They are increasing the academic position of the Extended School Year. This will require $30,000 of additional funding because certified teachers are needed. They are also including some special education students into the regular education summer programs with some co-teaching. They requested, but it was not included in the budget, one full-time nurse at the high school and one special education transition/vocation position at the high school. These will be proposed again in next year's budget. There are a few line items in the budget that have significant increases including salaries, consultants, contract services, field trips, telephones, other purchased services, gasoline, replacement equipment, new equipment, computer supplies, and specialized assistive tech devices and computers. The attached presentation given to the Board details the needs in each line. There is a visually impaired program in the budget book. This currently includes one FTE certified teacher, with para support for students with visual impairment. Consultants are used for specialty evaluation. Board of Education Services for the Blind provide some of the funding, but it is never enough to fund the entire program. She commented that the district has quite a few visually impaired students. She stated that tuition is a big line. They generally project about 300 students a year that the district pays tuition for. Some are as short as 20 days and others for the entire year and extended day program. The placement costs increase each year 3-5 percent. She commented that DCF and the courts are making few placements, but are keeping more students in the community. If DCF places fewer students and Manchester places more, the excess cost reimbursement will decrease. They increased the space at MRA to be able to keep more students in district. This costs approximately $100,000 more in the 2005-06 budget. Parents are choosing to send more students with special needs to magnet, charter, and vo-ag schools, which increases tuition costs. They are estimating that the excess cost reimbursement, which is decreasing each year, would be between 55-65 percent for this budget. They also used some funds from Medicaid to offset this cost, which also may decrease this year. As history, in 2003-04, there were a total of 297 students with a projected need of $4.2M, and a net cost of $2.5M after applied revenue. When the current year's budget was constructed, they estimated 300 students with a need of $3.9M. The budget for this was $2.0M with a shortfall to date of $1.0M. For the 2005-06 budget, she projects a need of $5.3M for 300 students, with a revenue estimate of $891,000. They will budget at $4.2M, hoping that the revenues are higher than anticipated. This year it is estimated to come in at about 74 percent.

Mr. Golas thanked Mrs. Tait for her presentation and opened the floor to questions. He also recognized Mr. Spadaccini from the Board of Directors and thanked him for attending the meeting.

Mrs. Lok asked if more information could be given regarding the $1M shortfall.

Mrs. Tait stated that is the primary reason for the budget freeze.

Mrs. Brooks confirmed that it is the primary reason for the budget freeze. She stated she would be giving the Board an update on her end of the year projection at the first Board meeting in March.

Ms. Ouellette clarified that the $1M shortfall is for the current budget, not for the 2005-06 budget. She stated they are also anticipating grant funds to help compensate for the additional costs.

Mrs. Brooks agreed, in addition to the freeze on all of the other accounts, to cover the $1M, or close to it.

Mr. Rizzo stated that some of the FTEs are additional time in current positions. He asked if any of the requested positions are new positions.

Mrs. Tait stated that with the exception of a few, most of them are new positions.

Mr. Rizzo commented on Sliver Grant funds not being available next year. He asked how much is currently received in Sliver Grants.

Mrs. Tait stated that they received approximately $30,000 last year, $25,000 this year. It is aimed at professional development and consulting.

He thanked Mrs. Tait for her presentation and the detail it provided. He questioned the projection of 300 students who would need tutoring students.

Mrs. Tait stated these are the students who are placed out of district in programs that Manchester cannot provide. The funding for children who are expelled and tutored comes from a tutoring budget line.

Mr. Rizzo commented on increasing the openings at MRA for Manchester students, and therefore decreasing them to other towns, resulting in Manchester not receiving the tuition. He asked when the district has a special education student who attends a school such as Two Rivers, is there an additional cost to the tuition.

Mrs. Tait stated that this is true because of additional needs of the student.

Mr. Rizzo commented on the revenue received for excess costs, and asked if it was currently going to the Board of Education.

Mrs. Tait stated that excess costs go directly back to the Board of Education.

Mr. Rizzo commented on the upcoming need being reduced by $200,000.

Mrs. Tait said that it one of the hardest, volatile accounts to project.

Mr. Rizzo feels that it is important to communicate this issue to the Board of Directors so that they understand that this is one of the biggest problems in the budget. If it is not funded properly, the situation gets worse. He asked if there was an anticipation to stop cutting these funds, and if there is a floor they are trying to reach.

Mrs. Tait stated there has been a lot of talk in the legislature about full funding. The other thing that is supposed to happen is the reimbursement percent being adjusted.

Mrs. Hackett thanked and commended Mrs. Tait for her thorough presentation. She commented on the summer school program and stated she heard first hand from people on how impressed were with it. They were presently surprised at the strides the students made. She asked about the increases in this program and what is being done to lengthen the face time that students have.

Mrs. Tait stated they are trying to model their school year after the regular school year. Historically the summer program has been a recreation-based program. Last year, it was made to be half recreation and half academic. This year, they are proposing to make it all academic in the morning, and then if parents choose, recreation would be in the afternoon.

Mrs. Hackett asked about the provision of more access to telephones for case managers. She asked Mrs. Tait to elaborate on this issue.

Mrs. Tait stated there are limited phones with outside lines and long distance lines and that are private in order to call parents. With the crowding issues at the high school, phone access is a big problem.

Mrs. Hackett mentioned the current initiative at the high school where teachers are required to call 3 parents per month. She stated these teachers seem to have access to phones in the building. She asked that the existing infrastructure be explored at the high school before money is spent in this area. She also stated that email might also add some leverage with this problem.

Mrs. Tait commented that teachers are cautioned not to email sensitive information.

Mrs. Hackett commented that there should be a consistent policy throughout the district when emailing parents.

Mrs. Hackett stated that over the years, Manchester has been pleased with its reduction in outside placement costs by approximately 25 percent. She wondered if this has been maintained, given the limited resources, and how it balances with DCF placing fewer students.

Mrs. Tait stated that issues remain with students with serious mental health issues, as these programs are very difficult to construct and are better served outside of the district.

Mr. Golas thanked Mrs. Tait for her presentation and stated it was easy to understand. He commented that three of the lines comprise the largest increase in the entire budget, one being the tuition that seems to haunt the Board. He agrees that there are a lot of unknowns when trying to project for this line.

Ms. Ouellette invited Mrs. Gejda, Interim Assistant Superintendent, to provide the budget presentation on the professional development portion.

Mrs. Gejda stated in setting the goals and developing the budget for professional development, one of the key anchors is the Manchester Public Schools Strategic Plan. In addition to this is student achievement and closing the achievement gap. Other considerations are district initiatives, professional growth for staff, licensure requirements for staff, and Federal and State mandates. The Strategic Plan for 2005-06 states five goals: accountability for success for students and staff; equal access to resources; promote family involvement and community partnerships; develop student attitude, ownership and character; and, prepare children to learn. Many items presented can be tied back to the Strategic Plan. In regard to student achievement, the area that most are concerned with is closing the achievement gap through instruction strategies, the learning environment, and using student work to plan instruction. Other areas of focus for student achievement are the Literacy and Numeracy programs. Preparing for assessments are also very important to the district. District initiatives that are important within the district over the past several years include data driven decision-making, school readiness, NEASC MHS accreditation, and graduation requirements. Professional growth for staff includes new frameworks and curriculum alignment; instructional strategies for diverse learners; co-teaching lessons; and developing proficiency standards and assessments. Licensure requirements include a requirement of 90 hours of continuing education training. Teachers are required to have 15 hours in the area of reading instruction for the elementary certificate, and 15 hours in use of computers in the classroom for K-12. Administrators also have to obtain 90 hours of training and must include 15 hours in teacher evaluation. When planning for professional development, these guidelines have to be kept in mind. Federal and State mandates that the district needs to pay close attention to when developing professional development, and they include improved student achievement, high quality teachers for NCLB, Least Restrictive Environment, and integration of technology into instruction.

Kate England, Supervisor of K-12 Language Arts, stated the quality of professional development and the commitment in the district is superior. She provided history of where professional development has focused on in the previous year, including Train the Trainer Literacy model, the comprehensive literacy assessment and instruction training for all new Manchester hires, and professional staff development linking assessment and instruction. Current professional development activity includes intermediate reading strategies, writer's workshop, and intermediate grade reading strategies, assessment training and Haskins Training. The projected Language Arts professional development needs for 2005-06 are data driven decision making; preparation for CMT, Generation 4; district-wide implementation of Writer's Workshop; comprehension strategy instruction; differentiated instruction strategies and curriculum revision.

Mrs. Gejda provided ongoing activities in math, science and technology as well as the projected professional development needs for 2005-06. In all three categories, activities include train the trainer numeracy model for elementary math coaches and teachers; professional staff development linking assessment and instruction; and district-wide curriculum revision, alignment, and assessment development. She noted that Title funds are funding all of these math initiatives, as well as a tech grant. Professional development in science has been supported by the entitlement grants as well as the Math/Science Partnership grant. Technology funding is also through Entitlements, but also from competitive technology grants. Projected professional development needs for the coming year includes meeting the needs of diverse learners, data-driven decision-making, assessment, program adoptions, on-going technology workshops and administrator's professional development. Depending on how students are achieving, priorities can be established within this list. She reviewed the budget for the current year, including entitlements of $1.1M, competitive grant funds of $150,000 and other grants of $95,000. Originally budgeted by the Board was $318,000. To date, $40,500 has been spent due to the budget freeze imposed in September. For next year, entitlement funds are not known. They anticipate they will stay fairly constant; however Title V and the technology money have been decreasing over time. The competitive grants cannot yet be determined. As this time, they have budgeted $218,000, in which $75,000 is for substitute funds specifically for professional development. The balance reflects what individual schools have requested for professional development. Concerns for the 2005-06 budget include competing areas for entitlement monies, uncertainty of future funding for competitive grants, and district needs continue to grow based upon demographics and NCLB.

Mrs. Lok referred to the specific school budgets and their professional development requests. She stated in order to maximize the benefits to the district, is any networking done so that schools can use similar resources, etc. She also asked if there was oversight in the district of the professional development that is happening within each school.

Ms. England replied that specific development is each school is aligned with specific needs within that school, which are monitored district wide.

Mrs. Gejda commented that the elementary and secondary principals meet on a monthly basis and it allows them an opportunity to share. There is a professional development form that each staff member fills out and sends to the Assistant Superintendent's office for approval. They are trying to share at the administrative meetings what is being done across the district, and believes more of this can and should happen. She added that some schools have a particular focus and specialty for their professional development.

Mrs. Lok questioned the $75,000 allocated towards substitutes rather than being directed towards professional development. She understands this, but wonders if there is a way to maximize the dollars in this area. She asked how much professional development is done in addition to the three days provided by the district.

Mrs. Gejda stated there is no set number of days beyond the three days. Approximately $77 per day is needed for a substitute, which is about 1,000 days. She does not believe this is excessive.

Mrs. Lok appreciating seeing the number of hours of continued education that is required. She also commented on the statement that NCLB requires highly qualified teachers. She has always believed that Manchester has highly qualified teachers regardless of this legislation. The question she has heard is why the district has to offer professional development if the teachers are so well qualified, certified and paid.

Ms. England stated that certainly Manchester has highly qualified teachers. However, trends and activities change and it is very important that teachers keep current in their practice. This is why professional development is offered so that teachers can improve their craft.

Mrs. Gejda commented that it is important that teachers learn outside of the district, but she has heard that they also learn a lot from each other. Professional dialogue is professional development as well. Most teachers are getting their professional development after class hours. They receive CEUs towards their license for this.

Mrs. Lok referred to data, and that there was one person at each school who could access the data. She asked if this is workable.

Mrs. Gejda stated that all information would be loaded in regularly so that teachers can look at a profile of a student. There is at least one person who can access these reports at each school; however, each building has an account to EdSmart. The principal designates who has access in the building.

Mrs. Lok asked if teachers are able to review records of students before the school that would be useful in planning the curriculum.

Mrs. Gejda answered that this definitely could happen. Most schools this past August used the data on their incoming students to prepare.

Mrs. Lok commented that she would be interested in their opinion that there are three language arts types of positions within the district. She was also happy to hear comments about closing the achievement gap, but she is concerned. She would like the district to focus on this, making sure that the Board or administration is never misleading the public to think that higher students are brought down to meet the lower students in order to close the gap.

Mr. Rizzo wanted to make sure the public understands that there are three professional development days at the beginning of the year, but those are not the only days professional development occurs in the district. It occurs anything throughout the course of the year, depending upon scheduling and release time. He confirmed that $318,000 was budgeted last year for professional development; however, only $40,000 was spent. He stated that professional development continued with the use of entitlement monies because most of the funding comes from entitlement monies. He asked why $100,000 less was budgeted in the upcoming year.

Mrs. Gejda stated she could not speak for everyone who submitted a professional development request, but a lot of the professional development that has been done has been funded through grants. The focus has been on the NCLB legislation and using the entitlement funds towards this. Her personal budget remained the same with the exception of education technology.

Mr. Rizzo asked if there was a decrease in requests for professional development from staff.

Mrs. Gejda stated she has not seen a great deal of it in the past couple of years because of money constraints. The curriculum office tries to coordinate the professional development.

Ms. Ouellette stated there is the train the trainer model, and she believes on site continual training is both cost effective and essential. When the experts are within the district, extra costs do not have to be spent for other workshops.

Mr. Rizzo stated he is concerned if the teacher is discouraged to bring requests forward being told there is no money to fund it. He encourages teachers to bring ideas forward and not to always rely on the curriculum office for opportunities. He underscored that of the money budgeted last year, only $40,000 has been spent. He is concerned about this. He agrees that it is important to train the teachers in Manchester, but does not want to snuff out the creativity and other opportunities.

Ms. Ouellette stated that she is very confident with the principals and supervisors as they move forward with the walkthrough model and professional teacher evaluation model. These both can identify areas of growth that teachers may need. She is confident they will bring those needs forward.

Mrs. O'Neill stated that a lot of teachers have after school workshops. She believes another big thing is the mentoring program for teachers. She feels there is a lot of shared learning, which could be professional development of new teachers learning from experiences teachers. She noted that there is professional development on Election Day as well. She feels that it is still getting done despite the amount spent, as it is more creative.

Ms. Ouellette stated that a lot of the professional development is done during faculty meetings as well.

Mr. Golas thanked Mrs. Gejda and Ms. England for their presentations.

G. Public Comments

None.

H. Closing Comments

None

B. Approval of the Minutes - January 25, 2005 Budget Workshop

Mr. Golas asked for a motion for the January 25, 2005 minutes.

MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education approves the January 25, 2005 Budget Workshop minutes. (6/0/0)

J. Next Workshop - Wednesday, February 9, 2005 (snow date Thursday, February 10,
2005)

Ms. Ouellette provided the highlights for the next workshop, including technology, the Equity position, the bilingual position, Policy 3510 and furniture replacements.

Note: There were public comments that were heard at the end of the meeting.

G. Public Comments (repeated)

1. Michelle Hellman, 523 East Center Street. She is parent of a student in the Special Education program. He is in kindergarten so they are new to the system. She encouraged the Board to think strongly about issues that relate to special education, but seems to be small budget amounts in the whole picture of the budget. Specifically, professional development. She agrees that this needs to be continued in traditional areas of academics. She encouraged professional development of regular education teachers for the inclusion model. She believes this will help teachers look at the whole child. She also commented on the clerical support issue. She stated the amount of paperwork involved is staggering. She feels it is a necessary position in regard to the program. She commented on the summer program, and believes that a year round program is very important for children of special needs as it creates a difference for them in terms of their continued progress. She commented that early prevention is the key to success.

2. Tracy Schultz-Davis, 56 Alexander Street. She is president of the Special Education PTA. They are very glad to see the increase in some of the areas in the budget. The summer program was needed a long time ago. They would like to see it expanded even further. Concerns they have are with professional development. They believe it has to go further than what it is. There is no method for tracking individual goals of students, which are stated, on their IEP document. This is a concern to her. She addressed transition, and believes the district does not do very well with that. She would like to see some money put into this area of the budget to allow this to start being addressed at the middle school level.

3. Holly Hood, 22 McKinley Street. Regarding communication on the part of parents or case managers to homes, she related an experience she had at the high school. She stated they spent quite a bit of time looking for a place to meet. The chosen room was a room that teachers had to use to get to another room. In less than an hour's time, five people interrupted her confidential conversation with the teacher. She believes telephone is a possibility, but it is hard for parents to receive calls at work. She stated she would not want to communicate on email regarding confidential matters. She feels if Mrs. Tait is asking for telephones, there is a reason why. She believes the workers in the after school program and summer school program also need to have telephones on them for safety reasons. She feels transition is another area that needs to be addressed very soon in order to comply with Federal laws.

I. Adjourn

MOTION: Rizzo/Hackett s.v. The Board of Education adjourns at 9:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Margaret Hackett, Secretary
Manchester Board of Education