|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Crockett, Edwards, Golas, Hackett, Rizzo, Rowe, Small-Miller, Stafford ABSENT:
Huyler A1.
Call to Order A2.
Pledge of Allegiance A3. Minutes of December 6, 2005 and December 12, 2005 Ms. Hackett asked for a motion to accept the minutes of December 6, 2005. MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approves the minutes of December 6, 2005. 8/0/0 Mr. Rowe asked that a sentence on page nine of the December 12, 2005 minutes be removed, as he stated he was quoted incorrectly. Ms. Hackett asked that the tapes be reviewed and the corrected minutes be brought back to the next Board meeting for approval. Ms. Hackett stated that there were two items to be added to the agenda tonight, and she called for a motion. MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approves adding two additional items to the agenda under Superintendent's Report: Item D4. School Safety Update and Item D5. I.P. Telephony Update. 8/0/0 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Brian Armstrong, 59 Barry Road. Mr. Armstrong stated that he fully understands the plan to racially balance the schools that is being forced on the town by the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut Supreme Court. He mentioned that expressing his opposition to the Board will not stop the plan from moving forward, because the Board's role in the process is to find the best way to follow the law, and not change the law. He mentioned that his intention tonight was to outline bringing this fight back to Harford and stop the plan. He explained that he had reasons why he decided not to present his plan to the Board. One of his reasons was so he could use his time to publicly share a word of suggestion to the Board as a whole. He feels the Board needs to understand the magnitude of what is being forced on the town, and to understand that there is an overwhelming resentment in this town to any plan that will bus children away from their neighborhood schools. He encouraged the Board to go back and listen to the questions and comments about racially balancing our schools, that were made at the December 12th Board meeting, as he feels the Board has fallen short of the level of excellence that he has become accustomed to with the Manchester Board of Education. He suggested that the Board repackage their message and rise above the judgmental comments, as he feels they have not brought the town together. 2) Milt
Perlman, 3 Sanford Road. Mr. Perlman talked about the cost of the high
school addition and Bennet Middle School reconstruction rising markedly.
He also mentioned the talk in the papers about another referendum next
November to get more money for these two projects. He feels these two
projects are undervalued, simple because the Board thinks it can get
the referendums passed. He stated that now the costs have skyrocketed
to the point where the Board doesn't even know if it can fix up the
high school with the present referendum. He mentioned that every time
the Town issues out a bond referendum they put out a financial statement.
The financial statement has the conditions of the schools, enrollment,
capacity, etc. He also talked about the capacity numbers versus the
enrollment numbers. 4) Sherry Kerran, 86 Barry Road. Ms. Kerran told the Board that she was very upset about an incident on December 21st where her 6 year old son, who attends Buckley Elementary School, was not put on the bus by, but instead was let out the back door to walk home. The door shut behind him and was locked, and there was no parent there to meet him. Her child walked home and waited stood outside his house for an hour and forty minutes alone. She complained that she tried to make contact with the principal and the Superintendent's office, but received no return call from either. She requested that a buzzer be put on the outside of the back door so this does not happen again. Superintendent Ouellette apologized to her, and told her she was not briefed on this issue by her Central Office staff, nor her Executive Secretary, but that she would certainly look into it first thing in the morning and contact her to discuss it. C. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Superintendent mentioned that there were 7 items on the Consent Calendar that she would like to bring to the Board's attention,, and she recommend that the following items be approved by the Manchester Board of Education: PERSONNEL ACTION APPOINTMENTS RESIGNATIONS Claire Taylor, special education teacher, at Nathan Hale School, has submitted her letter of resignation for personal reasons, effective the end of business on January 20, 2006. Ms. Taylor has been with Manchester Public Schools since February 1, 1999. Laura McCoy,
first grade teachers, at Nathan Hale School, has submitted her letter
of resignation for retirement purposes, effective the end of this school
year. Ms. McCoy has been with Manchester Public Schools since September
8, 1971. C3.
Permission to Apply for Education Special Projects - Verplanck Elementary
School C4.
Permission to Apply for Education Special Projects - Washington Elementary
School C5. Budget Transfer Among Categories C6. Appropriation for Education Special Projects - ESEA Grant - Public and Non Public C7. Appropriation for Education Special Projects - Title III for $26,914 Mr. Rizzo
commented on Item C2., saying that on February 15, 2006, the date a
Board meeting is being changed to, there is a Personnel and Finance
Committee meeting scheduled. Ms. Brooks Mr. Edwards commented on Clair Taylor's resignation and wanted to give her special recognition for her years of service as a special education teacher at Nathan Hale School, as his daughter worked with her last year, and he also bid Laura McCoy a fond farewell as she retires. MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approves the Consent Calendar as outlined by the Superintendent of Schools. 8/0/0
The Superintendent asked, with the Board's permission, to have Items D4. and D5. heard first before her presentation, since there were guest speakers presenting those items.
Mr. Bishop
told the Board that in November, at the request of the Superintendent
and Chief of Mr. Bishop
mentioned that in regards to the fire at Keeney Elementary School last
Friday Mr. Rizzo
asked Mr. Bishop to give an update as to staffing of security guards
and School Resource Officers (SRO) at the schools. Mr. Bishop stated
that there is one SRO and one security person at Illing Middle School
and also at Bennet Middle School. He mentioned that he has been asked
by the Superintendent to give additional attention to the Bennet Middle
School area, due to the design of the campus with multiple buildings.
The SRO from Illing also spends time at the Bentley Alternative Education
Program, sharing his time, and the SRO from Bennet shares
his time at the Manchester Regional Academy. With regard to Manchester
High School, there are two SRO's, a total of four full time security
personnel, and three part time security D5.
I.P. Telephony Update - Jack McCoy Mr. McCoy handed out a flow chart and reported that the I.P. Telephony Pilot was done, the systems have been distributed in the places where they have the fibre net, and I.P. Telephony is working today. He mentioned that the Tech Support Staff for the Town, Board of Education, and Police Department are using the system in their daily work. They are coming up with lists of things that need to be dealt with and fixed. In February they expect to do a request for Appropriation from the Board of Directors for the second half of the project. Based on the role out strategy they are going to do, given the appropriation is made, they have a set of Early Adopters, which include the high school, Public Works Department, the Landfill Department, Vehicle Maintenance Department, and the Information Systems Department, who will use the I.P. phones. This will give the Tech Support people an opportunity to work intensely with a smaller group of people and hone their skills, which they just received some training in. The project will go forward in this last phase, which will involve the implementation of things like 911, increase Voicemail availability for everyone, and the Autodial capability that was talked about in the past, and essentially roll out the telephones themselves, the instruments and the connectivity throughout the departments of the schools. Mr. McCoy mentioned that the general plan would be to have training in June or September for the schools, depending on availability. He stated that the pilot request for appropriation would go to the Board of Directors in February, and once the project is approved in that phase, they can start redirecting and turning off the Centrix costs, which are significant costs in this project, the existing telephone systems. After this initial stage is done, they will go forward with the actual building and deploying out of the telephones themselves. He explained that the Board is not being asked for a ruling or a response at this point. He just wanted to bring the Board up-to-date on where the appropriation process is. Mr. Edwards asked about the $180,000 appropriation, and if it is fully funded by the Board of Directors. Mr. McCoy responded by saying no, that it is shared by the enterprise funds from the Town, the General Fund, the Board of Education, and Police. The basic mechanism is that a portion of the phone costs, that the Board has going into the Centrix, will be redirected to offset the costs in the deployment of new phones. Mr. Edwards said that from a net standpoint, it doesn't cost the Board anything, and Mr. McCoy said he was correct on that. Mr. Edwards mentioned that the Centrix lines, as he understood them, are dedicated to each individual location, and Mr. McCoy confirmed that and said that some of the Centrix lines, when in full deployment, will be shut off with a minimum of one line kept on in each building for 911 purposes, and that the phone lines that will be used are in place right now and being used over the fibre net. Mr. Edwards asked how many Centrix lines are serving the high school. Mr. McCoy responded stating that he would have to get that figure for him, but the total for the Board of Education, entirely, is about 400 lines. Mr. Edwards
asked if the main cost is the handset cost, and Mr. McCoy said that
was true. At this time, the Superintendent recognized two staff members who have submitted there resignation for retirement purposes: Nancy Stearns, special education teacher at Buckley Elementary School, who has been with the Manchester Public Schools since September 1, 1992, and also Laura McCoy, first grade teacher at Nathan Hale School, who has been with the district since September 8, 1971. She thanked them for their services, and wished them well in their retirement. D1.
School Closing Notification Update The Superintendent
stated that with news of in-coming storms, she starts around 3:30 a.m.
She mentioned that information is also put on two websites: the Connecticut Weather website at www.ctweather.com and the Board of Education's website at boe.townofmanchester.org. She stated that the accuracy of her call depends on the accuracy of the weather forecasters, for early dismissal and/or the closing of school. The Superintendent further stated that as parents, if they disagree with her call with the opening of school due to wintry conditions or extreme heat conditions, the parent has the right to keep their child home. She asked that the parent please call their child's school and/or attendance office to excuse their child's absence. She asked parents to please note that excessive absences could impact their child's learning progress in school. D2.
Middle School Accelerated Schedule Update The Superintendent
mentioned that Mr. Martin has distributed a letter to all staff who
currently receive a stipend for leadership, extra curricula, and coaching
positions, stating that the district plans to continue the annual practice
of posting and appointing qualified employees to fill these "Other
Salary" positions for the 2006-07 school year, with the intent
to provide a balance of leadership and co-curricular participation from
both the present Bennet and Illing staffs. It was noted in the letter
that all grade six Team Leader positions would be eliminated when the
sixth grades are moved from both middle schools to the elementary schools.
His letter further mentioned that in the spring, this process would
be more specifically outlined during the posting The Superintendent further explained that she intends to meet with each 6th grade team of employees from both middle schools, approximately around the last week of January, regarding their assignments for next year. It is also her intent to announce the name of the principal of Illing Middle School and the Bennet 6th Grade Academy during the third week of January. The Superintendent
mentioned that if the public would like to contact her with any questions
or D3.
District Strategic School Profile - Carol Burgess Ms. Burgess presented a PowerPoint presentation that outlined some of the following topics: What is the Strategic Profile?
Goal and Purpose:
Some of the Categories:
Manchester: ERG: State
Overview of the District
District Need
Student Enrollment
Race/Ethnicity
Staff Count
(FTE)
District Resources:
Instructional Hours Per Year
Summary
Using the Information
Mr. Edwards asked about the resource ratios, which show the teachers per administrator, and asked to confirm that when teachers are counted in the district, that we are counting reading consultants and literacy facilitators, if they are certified staff, as teachers and not administrators, which may account why the number may look better than the rest. Ms. Burgess said that we were. Mr. Edwards asked if Ms. Burgess could get an answer from the State as to bringing our curriculum into congruence with State testing, etc., and asked when the State will bring their report of test scores into congruence with NCLB, in terms of reporting at goal, versus reporting at proficient. The reason he asked the question was, as he looked at the numbers, it makes it look much worse than it really is from a NCLB standpoint, because the numbers are reported for goal, which is only the top two bands, and for proficiency it is the top three bands. When he looks at reading, math, and writing for grade 4, as an example, they range from 50% to over 60%, but that is deceiving. Ms. Burgess agreed with him, and stated she would be happy to take that question to the State. Mr. Rizzo asked about the results from the CMT's for grade 4. He stated that one chart shows the percent meeting State goal, and another chart shows percent proficient and above. Ms. Burgess stated that she did not touch on that chart in the packet and bring it forward publicly, as it would be discussed at the next Board meeting in her detailed update on CAPT, and that the CMT's have been reported publicly. Mr. Rizzo
mentioned that he is used to receiving the State's actual report, which
he said Mr. Stafford noticed that we always look at years and not students. He asked if there were any way that we could look at the students and actually monitor them from year-to-year, the same students, so it could be put together with the report that they have. Ms. Burgess stated that is happening with a longitudinal study. She mentioned that the testing has not been in service for that long. She also stated that now that they are implementing testing at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, we will be able to follow our students, the same group of students, as they progress through our school system.
E1. Diane Kaplan deVries, Ed.D. - Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. The Superintendent stated that Dr. Dianne Kaplan deVries, the Project Director of the coalition, presented an overview on the financial and legal obligations at the December 12th Board meeting, and that Dr. deVries is here tonight to answer any questions from the Board regarding her presentation at the last meeting. The Superintendent cautioned the Board that delaying a decision this evening could result in more of a financial impact to the Board, should the Board reconsider supporting the coalition at a future time. Dr. deVries
mentioned that the lawsuit was filed on November 22, 2005, and what
is at issue now is the amended complaint that they intend to file before
the court deadline of January 18th. Mr. Edwards referenced the funding, stating that the Town could participate for a fee of $10,000, and if the Town participated, the Board of Education could participate for free. Dr. deVries said that was true, but only if theTown told the Board they did not have to pay their share. She explained that it is one fee for the Town and Board together. If a Board of Education wanted to participate, without their Town participating first, a fee was established of $1,500 for Boards only, and then that fee would be deducted from the Town's fee when they joined, leaving the Town to pay $8,500. Mr. Edwards asked if she knew if the Town planned on participating. Superintendent Ouellette responded saying that she has not had a formal conversation with the Town in regards to this. It was her understanding that it would be moving forward to the Board of Directors, but she does not have that in writing. Ms. Hackett mentioned that there is discussion of that happening, and it does need to go before the Board of Directors. She said that she has spoken to a few people, informally, and there is a positive interest in it. Mr. Edwards mentioned that he was hoping the Town would join, and the Board would get in for free. He mentioned that he would support paying the $1,500, just in case the Board of Directors decided to join and asked the Board for half of the $10,000 fee, which he hoped they would never do, since the Board could join for a fee of $1,500. Mr. Rowe
mentioned that he has done a lot of research on this subject and studied
the information on their website, went over all the material that Dr.
deVries handed out at the last meeting, talked with friends and family,
and many individuals in the educational setting about it. Dr. deVries said that it is a combination of both those things, saying they have a multifacitated strategy. They have opted to pursue with litigation to make certain that this is the top priority of our Legislature and that this gets resolved at long last, and also they are an advocacy organization, a public awareness organization. She mentioned they would be doing much public engagements with Town meetings, conference presentations, and workgroups, etc. around the State. They want ordinary citizens to understand how the schools are being funded, and what is wrong with the system. She also mentioned that the organization is not just ideas, but also action, and among the ideas are how to generate the revenues to cover the cost of education adequacy and equity. She stated that revising the idea is not a new idea, that it has long been talked about, and the formula is seriously broken and not one single Board of Education in the State is receiving what it needs to get. Mr. Rowe asked when they bring a lawsuit to court, are they going to be presenting solutions or just awareness, as he is afraid if they bring solutions the court could say these are good solutions, so they won't go ahead with the lawsuit. He would much rather see it be more of an awareness group, then an advocacy group, and then have the Legislature take care of it and restructure the tax structure in Connecticut. Dr. deVries agreed with him hypothetically, saying unfortunately that has not worked, and sited the lawsuit called Johnson versus Rowland, which Manchester was a part of in 1998. The lawsuit was alive for five years, in which the Legislature did nothing to solve the problem. They just gave the towns involved a little more money, hoping they would drop it. Dr. deVries hopes the right remedies can come about without the necessity of ever having to try the case, but they are prepared to do so if necessary. She mentioned that there is a lot of education to do, as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, and she needs all of the coalition partners to help in that process. If Manchester joins, they will be asked to host community forums. Mr. Edwards stated he supports the motion, as all the other means don't work, but stated that if we get more money from the State we will surely get more State control of our schools. He mentioned that the more money that is allocated from the State, the more they are going to have a say in our control of our Board of Education. He stated that as a citizen, he is tired of everything having to be decided by the courts, instead of having people of good conscience coming to the table and resolving a serious issue. Mr. Crockett asked if we have enough money to invest in this project, and where are we going to get it. Ms. Brooks responded saying that it would have to be found, as it was not budgeted. It would take away from something else that the money was going to be spent on. She stated that it would logically come out of a contracted services account or a legal type account. Mr. Crockett
asked if we were putting anything at risk for our students by doing
this, or disrupting anything in place by doing this. The Superintendent
said she would advise Mr. Rizzo mentioned Dr. deVries stated that the effort is not so much about property tax relief, but about providing an equal education to all children in Connecticut, and he said those are very laudable goals, and that he would support that. To him, it is a revamping of how education is funded and bringing relief to the local property tax payer. He mentioned that Manchester has more people who don't own property than other affluent communities, and therefore, unable to fund the education, so he sees this as a means for more equitable distribution of funding education. Ms. Hackett thanked Dr. deVries for coming and providing compelling data, and that she is totally behind the coalition. She is pleased to see the amount and types of individuals, Towns, and Boards of Education that are involved. She also mentioned that over the past 11 years, the Board has been under funded by almost $27 million dollars from the State because of the ECS cap issue, which led to programs that could not be funded. Ms. Hackett wished Dr. deVries and the Coalition the best of luck, and hoped to here periodic updates from her. Dr. deVries mentioned that there is an ECS seminar on January 18th from 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., with a Board meeting of the Coalition at 8:30 a.m. at Middlesex, with a repeat seminar on January 21st from 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., and our Board could send four representatives to them. Ms. Hackett asked if we are considered a distressed school system, a "catch-up school system". Dr. deVries said that we were. Mr. Stafford stated that he supports the coalition, and that the $1,500 is a good investment and not a gamble towards the remediation of the shortfall of what has been happening. He has noticed that there have been articles in the newspaper of talk at the legislative level because of the threat of the lawsuit, so things are starting to move. Mr. Rowe said he is impressed by the prestigious supporters of the coalition, and he feels it is our fiscal responsibility to the Town of Manchester to try to offset property taxes going towards the education system, and it should be done through the Legislature proposing a better educational structure for the Towns. He stated that he would support this as well. MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education moves to approve the designation of $1500 to join the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Educational Funding as a party in the lawsuit. Ms. Hackett asked those Board members who are interested in attending the seminars should contact the Superintendents office. Mr. Rizzo moved to nominate Mr. Rowe to attend the seminar on January 18th, with Mr. Edwards seconding it. Mr. Stafford volunteered to attend the January 21st seminar. Ms. Hackett asked for the motion to be withdrawn, and the matter of attending the seminars handled through the Superintendent's office, as an administrative issue. E2.
Establishment of Policy Committee - Jenifer Tait MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education moves to approve the establishment of a Policy Committee as outlined by the Superintendent. 8/0/0 The Superintendent asked Ms. Tait to inform the Board as to when she would begin the process, and Ms. Tait stated that the committee would start to meet the end of the month. F. NEW BUSINESS - none G. COMMUNICATIONS H. COMMITTEE REPORTS H1.
Personnel and Finance Committee - John Rowe FY 2006/2007
budget priorities were discussed. A consensus that the priorities would
be: A lengthy presentation was given by Ms. Diane Kaplan deVries explaining the mission of the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding. Ms. deVries ask the Board to join and support the Coalition. Since there was a cost involved with joining the Coalition, the Committee felt a decision should be made by the entire Board of Education and requested that Superintendent Ouellette amend the December 12, 2005 meeting agenda. Ms. deVries agreed to attend and give her presentation to the entire Board. The November
30, 2005, FY2006 budget projections were discussed. At this time, the
November projection shows a $420,146 deficit. The deficit is mostly
attributed to the increase cost of utilities. Mrs. Brooks informed the
Committee that the chill on spending will continue through December
and a freeze on discretionary spending will begin the end of December
until a thorough analysis of utility costs is done. The Buildings & Grounds Supervisors Contract was reviewed and will be presented to the Board at the December 12, 2005 meeting for ratification. Mr. Crockett asked the Superintendent to look into a full-time athletic director position in the FY2007 budget. Mr. Rowe
asked if the problems with the Manchester Swim Club had been addressed.
Mrs. Brooks stated that the Swim Club had come before the Committee
in the spring. The issues were resolved and a contract was signed with
the district. Mrs. Brooks was not aware of any issues this school year. Mr. Rowe
asked if there was any possibility of the Board to help out with non-public
schools purchasing textbooks. Mrs. Brooks told the Committee that usually
the textbook companies have an educational discount, and that discount
was given to all schools, public or private. It was decided Mr. Rowe mentioned that he has contacted some of the non-public schools to find out which volumes, authors, and books they are using, and the cost they are paying. To date, he has not received a report back on it. H2. Community Relations Committee - none H3. Building and Sites Committee - none I. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Superintendent Ouellette responded saying that the Representatives will certainly be invited to participate in Courageous Conversation. Also, she mentioned that she and the Board Chair are working on an informal gathering for the Board to meet with them, as well, to discuss such issues. Mr. Edwards stated that he would be very interested in speaking with the Representatives about these issues, and appreciates their time and effort whenever they can meet with them. Ms. Hackett said that they are working on the logistics on scheduling such a meeting. Mr. Rowe mentioned an issue that was brought up at the last Community Relations Committee meeting, stating that they really want the public to get involved with the whole process in the racial balancing. He recommended at the meeting that the public be allowed to submit anonymous letters, this one time, to the Superintendent's office or to Board members, to get their ideas. He would like to see more input and feels this is one way to gather more input on the subject. Mr. Rowe made a motion to allow the public to submit anonymous letters to the Board or the Superintendent on their ideas about racial balancing. Mr. Crockett stated that he was at that same committee meeting, and agrees with Mr. Rowe on the idea of allowing the public to submit anonymous letters to the Board. He didn't know if a motion was needed or not on this. Ms. Hackett stated that this has been brought up as an item for a future agenda, and it was not the appropriate time to make a motion at this course in the meeting, but if the Community Relations Committee is looking to make that recommendation, then they should discuss it at the next committee meeting and be prepared to discuss it at a future Board meeting. She stated this just as a procedural note. Mr. Edwards made a point of order stating that if someone wants to add an item for a future agenda, and wants it to be placed under New Business at the next Board meeting, they could do that as well. Ms. Hackett agreed, but said to make a motion at this point in the meeting is inappropriate. Mr. Edwards agreed and said that the mover may choose to withdraw the motion and ask this to be an item for a future agenda. Mr. Rowe asked to have this item placed on a future agenda, and Ms. Hackett said she would have the Superintendent look at it in terms of fitting it in to a future Board meeting. Superintendent Ouellette said it would probably not be placed on the next Board agenda. She advised the Board that she would be meeting with the consultant from Courageous Conversations within the next week or two, having a conference call with him, as well as a visitation from him. She would like to get his input as well, as to what is the best way to receive the public input. She stated that she would appreciate putting a hold on this until she meets with the consultant. Mr. Rowe also mentioned that there were minutes from the Community Relations Committee meeting, and he realized that Ms. Small-Miller was not feeling well, and he asked the Chair if he could read the minutes into the record from that meeting. Ms. Small-Miller commented saying that she chose not to read the minutes as she had a revision to make to them, that they were not finalized. I. PUBLIC
COMMENTS MOTION: Golas/Rizzo s.v. To adjourn: 10:11 p.m. 8/0/0 Respectfully submitted, David Golas,
Secretary |