|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2005 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT: Edwards, Hackett, Golas, Lok, O'Neill, Rizzo, Robinson, Thresher ABSENT: Huyler ALSO ABSENT: None
Mr. Robinson led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes of April 11, 2005 Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the minutes of April 11, 2005. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts the minutes of the April 11, 2005 meeting. (6/0/2 - Hackett, Golas) B. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT - PART 1 Mrs. Watson congratulated the Math Department Team on their first place standing in the State of Connecticut for the fourth year in a row. She stated the Math Team works hard throughout the entire year. She introduced Ms. Roberta Thompson, coach of the Math Team, and told the Board that she is among the best. Ms. Ouellette read the certificate, and stated that Manchester will be sending six students to Penn State in June to compete nationally. Manchester has also qualified for the New England Association of Math Leagues contest to be held on April 29 in Boston. Each student received a certificate from the Board. Ms. Ouellette invited Manchester High School science teacher, Mr. Stan Bebyn, to present the awards to the Manchester High School Chemistry Olympiad Team. Mr. Bebyn stated that the students enter the competition to help prepare for the Advanced Placement Chemistry Exam in May. At UCONN, on May 11, 200 students from all over Connecticut competed, and the top 30 students were selected to continue based on their scores. Based on the Manchester High School students' performance, Manchester took first place in the Advanced Placement Division for the forth-consecutive year. Two students have taken the national test and they are awaiting their results to see if they qualify to go further. If they do well enough, they will be one of twenty students selected in the entire country to go to Denver, CO to compete. He thanked the students for working so diligently on their own time to prepare. He also thanked Manchester Community College for their donation of the use of equipment, their facilities and staff to help the team practice. Mr. Bebyn presented certificates to each student of the Chemistry Olympiad Team. Mr. Robinson added his congratulations to all of the students who bring honor to the district, the Board and the community. He thanked Mrs. Watson, Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Bebyn as well. C. PUBLIC
COMMENTS D. STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Mark Moeremans stated that he is very excited to serve on the Board. Devorah stated that the past month went by quickly. Presently, many students are preparing for the National Advanced Placement exams that begin on May 2. Mark told the Board of some upcoming events: Thursday, April 28, Brigham Young University Singing Group; Thursday, April 28, the Student Senate will sponsor the annual Blood Drive; Saturday, April 30, MHS Annual Can and Bottle Drive, 7:30 am - 2:00 pm. Devorah told the Board that the annual Mr. MHS Pageant would be held on Friday 29. She encouraged the community and Board to attend, as it is always a fun event. Additionally, on Saturday, April 30, Christmas in April will take place. The Junior Prom will be held on May 7 at the Colony. The seniors are looking forward to their prom and graduation, which is on June 16 at the Bushnell. Mrs. Hackett welcomed Mark Moeremans to the Board. She also asked Devorah about her college plans and wished her well. E. CONSENT
CALENDAR 1) Personnel Action Resignations Linda Dihlmann, language arts consultant at Highland Park School, has submitted her letter of resignation for retirement purposes, approved effective the end of business on June 30, 2005. Ms. Dihlmann has been with Manchester Public Schools since September 4, 1974. 2) Appropriation
for Education Special Projects - $500 3) Increase
in appropriation for Education Special Projects - $20,000 4) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects $500 5) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $1,500,616 6) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $68,860 7) Acceptance
of the Nathan Hale School Fire Alarm Project #077-0195CV 8) Acceptance
of the Verplanck School Fire Alarm Project #077-0196CV 9) Extended
Field Trip Request - Manchester High School Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts the items listed on the Consent Calendar. (8/0/0) F. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT - Part II Mr. McCoy stated that this project started about five or six years ago with the fiber optic network connecting all the schools. This network replaced all of the telephone lines provided by SBC's Centrex, which supports about 740 phones in the Town, Board of Education and Police Department. The cost of the current system is about $223,000 per year. The history of the project is that the took the material they developed five years ago, went out for a request for information about 8-10 months ago and received information from the marketplace on what technology could replace the phone system. They then wrote a specification and put it out to bid. They were looking for a large increase in the functionality of the phone system and in the absolute numbers of phones. The bids came back ranging from $1.5M to $700,000. The specification put out included a survey of all the schools and public buildings asking what kind of telephone communications was needed, how many phones and what type of phones. The survey came back with a need of a little over 1,400 phones. This new project enables the community to populate the buildings and meet the requirements of the government and schools. Another aspect of the proposal included requirements for use of the phone systems. Two major pieces of development work are embedded into the project: 911 services and auto-dial capability. In this new technology for 911, the police department will actually be able to see where the call is specifically coming from, along with other types of information. The technology is not just telephones, but technology that will deal with post 9/11 type of requirements. He made a quick demonstration of an Internet Protocol telephone call where he dialed a phone that traveled through a laptop, out to a fiber optic network, to a server that talks out to the Internet, to a public switch telephone network, to a cell phone tower, then to the cell phone in the audience. He stated that this is leading edge, very radical software. For this reason, they recommend a pilot approach, which will be constructed as follows: part one would be the very difficult software configuration; the second part would be to build the applications. If these two parts go well, they will recommend to the Boards to put it into production. He stated the phones (handsets) are the most expensive part of the project. The timeframe is that it goes to the Board of Directors on the May 10 agenda. They are trying to use the remaining money in the original fiber net project to fund the pilot, which is $150,000. As they move through the pilot, they will make the decision to do the production rollout of the application. They researched other districts that are doing the same type of thing and found that Manchester will be the largest district to undertake this type of project. He feels the project that tremendous benefits to the Town, school district and the community. This project would double the capacity that there is currently. Additionally, it would allow 96 concurrent phone calls. Mr. Robinson mentioned that the Town and Mr. McCoy have been given the status of third nationally in terms of technological stature nationwide. He congratulated him on that achievement. Mrs. Lok thanked Mr. McCoy for the report and update. She asked about the future costs down the line, in terms of staff members and a potential for an entire new department. She also asked about the maintenance agreements and costs. She is looking for what kind of input the administration has had in the design of the current plan and what sort of priority system is in place if needed. Finally, she would look for a recommendation from the Superintendent and Director of Business. Mr. McCoy stated that this project has gone on for five years, and he had members of the Board of Education on the design and development team. It has also been in the Board of Education and Board of Directors Strategic Plans. Mrs. Hackett stated that she wanted to make sure that Board of Education specifications and requirements were analyzed fully to enhance operations in-house and externally. Mr. McCoy stated that there is material he could provide which is a survey of all schools asking for their requirements. This was part of the specification that he could provide at the next meeting. Ms. Ouellette recommended that at the next meeting, the item be moved into Old Business for approval by the Board, and that all information is available at that time. Mrs. Hackett also asked about the proprietary aspect of the system. She asked if the system would be co-owned by the Board of Education, and by what percentage in terms of ownership and responsibility of cost. Mr. Edwards questioned the cost of the pilot of $150,000 to be spent from the fiber option project funds. He asked if there is more than $150,000 left in this account. Mr. McCoy stated there is more, approximately $325,000. Mr. Edwards stated the lease/purchase was for seven years. He asked what would happen if the project wasn't done. Mr. McCoy stated that if the project were not done, the cost would be the existing $223,000 per year with SBC. Mr. Edwards asked a technical question regarding IP6 to solve the quality of service issues that are typical of IP Telephony. He asked if the technology is currently available. Mr. McCoy stated that the large switches are IP6 capable, although the capability has not yet been turned on. They are finding that the new switches on the market are coming with IP6 capability. The server that is being used is IP6 capable. They also still need to deal with viruses, worms, etc. and they will have those solutions available as well. IP4 will be used as the fundamental part of the technology, but IP6 will be introduced into certain parts of the network. Mr. Edwards asked about IP Telephony hacks, which entails spoofing where the calls are coming from. He asked if that is addressed in the pilot. Mr. McCoy stated that these are the types of things that need to be tested. Mrs. Lok mentioned that the Superintendent stated this topic would come up next under Old Business at a future meeting. She stated a motion would be needed for this, and she additionally expressed her preferences that it comes up as New Business at a future meeting for discussion. 2. Enrollment/Dropout
Update 3. MHS
Class Size - Joan Libby/Don Sierakowski Attorney Libby stated that they continually review staffing. They look at elementary and middle school staffing to maintain a reasonable class size; however, their attention is drawn to the high school with increasing class sizes. For example, in English, there are 36 classes over 25 students, and 7 over 30 students. In Social Studies, there are over 35 classes over 25 students, and 3 over 30 students or more. In Math, there are 35 classes over 25 students, and 9, which are 30 students or more. In World Language, there are 23 classes over 25 students, and 6, which are 30 students or more. In Science, there are 12 classes over 25 students (lab classes), and one, which is 30 students or more. She included PE numbers in her report as well as sometimes it presents a safety issue with too large a class in terms of supervision. There are 19 classes with more than 25 students, and 2 of them are 30 students or more. Mr. Sierakowski stated they referenced some of the class size issues in the NEASC letter presentation. However, there are enrollment projections for next year, which range from 111-140 percent over capacity per department if students were to get their course requests. Closed classes have become a major issue. Although students are enrolling for courses, there are no slots available in classes. With the additional enrollment from 1999 to present, it called for at least 15-18 additional staff members; however, only two positions have been added. He stated that the high school is stretched to the breaking point. Currently, there are 6-8 study halls per block. Additionally, the AP class enrollment has grown tremendously in the last three years. He stated the MEA contract calls for class loadings of 125 students per teacher, and the high school is currently exceeding that. The MEA has been cooperative up to this point. He stated that they are in the midst of final scheduling for next year and they are short sections in every department. Mr. Rizzo asked what criteria are used to determine if a class is closed. Mr. Sierakowski stated that it depends upon the class. They try to keep the academic classes between 25 and 30. Also, if there are classes with academic issues, it is important to keep classes small. Lab and tech education classes have gone up in class size where safety can be an issue, as well as PE classes that have gone up to 35 students. Mr. Rizzo asked if the class size issues were at all levels, and if there are any classes under 25. Mr. Sierakowski stated there are no levels attached to the report, and that there are classes under 25 which are primarily GS, PSP classes, and in some cases, advanced classes that does not draw student interest. Mr. Rizzo commented on the fact that there are 6 to 8 study halls per block, with rooms being used. He asked if the cafeteria is counted as one of the rooms. Mr. Sierakowski stated that the cafeteria is used 3 blocks out of 4 each day. Mr. Rizzo stated that he visited the cafeteria study hall, and felt that it is not a bedlam type of situation. Students were quiet, either listening to music or studying. However, he does not feel that this is the best that can be done for the students. He asked about closed classes. Mr. Sierakowski stated that it would get worse before it gets better with the opening of the new wing in 2007. However, he stated that without additional people, the problem would not be alleviated. Mr. Rizzo commented that some of the class sizes are over the limit in accordance to the teacher's contract. He asked if paraprofessionals were hired to be in the larger classrooms. Attorney Libby stated that the contract provides the optimal maximum of 125 students for every teacher for 5 courses. There is a breakpoint of 130 when the administration has to do something to try to balance the class loads. She commented that they have been fortunate to this point that teachers at the high school have responded to the class size issue. Mrs. Lok asked if they could be provided with all the class numbers, as well as those under 25. 4. Private
School Tuition Update - Jen Tait Mrs. Tait stated that there are three issues to review: reasons for tuition placements; what the current information is; and, what needs to be considered. Regarding finances, some estimates are included where invoices have not been received. Additionally, some students are placed without prompt notice to the district by the placing agencies. Regarding student counts, placements are counted as each individual placement is made. There is an average of 300 placements per year. Some of the placements include extended school year which is summer programming. The actual student numbers are the unduplicated count of individual students placed out, which averages 200-215 per year. Using the Strategic School Profile, she stated that historically they are placing proportionately fewer children than the ERG or State, and that other agencies are proportionately placing higher numbers of children than the ERG or State. Agencies that place students out include law enforcement, judicial systems, DCF, and other State agencies such as the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Parents also place child in hospitals, substance abuse treatments, and choice and magnet school. The district also place students. The reasons students are placed include to separate victims from alleged perpetrators when there are assaults; when there are serious safety concerns for the student; to provide for very specialized learning needs; where there is a severe learning disability in a particular area that needs specialized training; children who need extended day and year programs to make educational progress, for specialized vocational and transition training; for older children who move into the district already in specialized programs who might be in jeopardy with graduation requirements; for children who move into the district with special needs; for children with special needs who are expelled; and when all of the district programs are full. Most of the placements occur at the beginning of the school year. She provided a chart of placements by month, with July/Aug/September being the highest. She stated that there are two budget lines: #5561, which is Connecticut districts, and #5563, which is private schools. For State reporting purposes, they need to track them separately. However, they need to be looked at together when looking at the funding. These same lines in the consolidated budget section also include regular education tuition for magnet schools, vo-ag schools, etc. The special education services for students in magnet schools, vo-ag schools and charter schools are included in the tuition line. Also included are educational services for regular education students in certain situations such as hospitalized, psychiatric illness, etc. and are attending school while they are hospitalized. She reviewed the volatility involved in budgeted by giving an example using data from March 30 to April 21, or 15 school days. She noted that there were several hundred thousand dollars differences in payments. As of April 21, there have been 98 public placements: 23 students in magnet and vo-ag schools and 37 students in detention. There were 159 private placements, including 13 students at Odyssey. There were also 30 students returned back to the district from placements. The district places children by type: transition programming; special education expelled; special learning; serious behavior/emotional focus; intensive therapeutic/behavior and emotional issues; behavior plus cognitive delay or severe learning disability; therapeutic day hospital; and special circumstances extended day programs. Agency placements by type include: court; specialize focus; detention; DCF; and Department of Mental Retardation. Parent placements by type include: magnet; vo-ag; charter; and, hospital and treatment programs. They have some concerns to date, which include: 26 students who have been in detention without invoices so the costs to district are an estimate; 9 DCF placed students do not have invoices; LEA placed 8 students without invoices but estimates are available; and parents placed 5 students that are not invoices, mostly in hospital programs for eating disorders, post surgical care, etc. The estimated costs for non-invoices placed students total $387,000. The anticipated placements from April 1 through the end of June include: court placing 10 students mainly in detention; DCF placing 4 students to foster or group homes; the district placing 4 students in hospital or expulsion programs; parents placing 3 students into hospitals for illness, and one other placement. The total cost of anticipated placements is $211,000. Other concerns include: at any time of the year, there are always 10-15 students placement without invoices making budget projections difficult; space in each school limits the ability to build responsive programs in the district; and space in Town may limit the ability to build in-district programs. Future thoughts include: inclusion and LRE should increase student achievement in the general curriculum; student achievement can improve student behavior; to duplicate some programs would require more specialized space and staff; educational best practice and cost and space needed to develop responsive programs that improve student achievement are the tripod for analysis; can the district stretch their ideas in new ways; and combine with other towns to develop need-specific programs cost effectively. Mr. Rizzo asked if the estimated costs are currently encumbered. Mrs. Tait stated that some of it is not encumbered, and that was Mrs. Brooks' concern when she provided the budget update. Mrs. Brooks verified this, and stated that there would be an update at the end of April in which $600,000 has not been included. Mrs. Tait stated they couldn't really encumber without knowing what to encumber. She added that since the report was developed, some invoices have been received and encumbered. Mr. Rizzo stated they have been talking about this program for months, particularly around the budget. He asked what happened this year from other years. He feels that the Board is paying out more than twice in special education costs this year than last year. He realizes that not being budgeted fully this year is one problem, but he sensed that significantly more money is being spent than in the past. Mrs. Tait stated that placements go up every year; however, the numbers of children are pretty steady over the years. She explained that this year, the budget was for less than what was spent two years ago. She feels they were terribly under-budgeted. The increase per year is 2 to 3 percent. Mr. Rizzo stated that the Board of Directors need to understand that this is a very important part and huge piece of the Board of Education budget. There is very little control over a lot of the placements. It bothers him that the Board loses credibility when they are forced to balance the budget. He feels that the Board needs to articulate the need accurately to the Board of Directors. Mrs. Tait stated the two accounts have been difficult to monitor because they are volatile. She noted it is easier to predict district placements than agency placements. Mr. Rizzo asked why the placements made to Manchester by agencies were greater than the ERG and the State. Mrs. Tait stated that the DCF agency in Manchester is one of their highest incident offices. Also, there is juvenile court in Rockville, which serves Manchester. Mrs. O'Neill noted there were budget transfers last year to cover these line items. Additionally, she asked if somebody gets placed in a group home in Manchester, does it make them a Manchester resident. Mrs. Tait stated that if the parent has retained parent rights and lives in another town, then the other town has nexus. If the child comes to the district with no nexus, parent rights are terminated, or the parents are incarcerated, then Manchester owns them. Mrs. O'Neill stated that she is concerned about the prison in Middletown. She asked if these students are placed in group homes and halfway houses. She asked if the numbers were increasing due to this. Mrs. Tait stated that one new group home was opened during the summer. Other group homes run their own tutoring program, and when children are ready, they will attend the schools. Mrs. O'Neill stated that the legislators should be made aware of the costs of the group homes to get some financial aid. Mr. Edwards noted the type of placement and cost is the volatility, and not the number of students that are placed. Regarding the volatility, he asked if there were some financial instruments, such as insurance or hedge products, available that could help with these costs. Additionally, because there are large swings from year to year and the Board is not allowed to carry any money at the end of the year, he wondered if it would be possible to do a fund with the Town of Manchester where the volatility could be smoothed over a number of years by carrying a balance in the account. He noted that something similar has been done with the capital account.
H. OLD
BUSINESS MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts May 4, May 19 and May 24 (if needed) for the Post Appropriation Budget Workshop dates. (8/0/0) Ms. Ouellette stated the workshops would be held at Lincoln Center from 7-9 pm. I. NEW
BUSINESS 2. Board
Self-Evaluation J. COMMITTEE
REPORTS K. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Robinson called for a recess at 9:33 pm. Mr. Robinson called the Board back in session at 9:45 pm. G. SECRETARIAL
GRIEVANCE HEARING - Joan Libby Mr. Neal Cunningham, Staff Representative for ASFCME Council 4, stated that there are a number of reclassification grievances filed by the Manchester Association of Educational Secretaries. He distributed a packet of information which included the grievances to be heard and the evidence that was presented at the previous steps of the grievance process. Attorney Chinni asked that a copy of the packet be shared with the Director of Human Resources. Copies were distributed to Attorney Libby and Attorney Chinni. Mr. Cunningham stated that the Board of Education has a clerical classification system, which provides classifications 1-5, and some different classifications for business secretaries 1-5. He reviewed the material in the packet starting with the letter from the co-presidents to the union asking for this hearing. The actual grievances include a class action grievance from the elementary school secretaries requesting a class 1 status. He noted that when speaking about classifications, it reflects the duties assigned a position, not the capabilities or specific things done by the incumbent in the position. There are three individual grievances: for Theresa Fuller requesting a class 1 business secretary status; for Nancy Guzy requesting a class 2 secretary status; and for Terri Smith requesting a class 2 secretary status. Attorney Chinni noted that within the class action grievance, there are signatures of individual secretaries missing. Mr. Cunningham noted that this was due to a matter of timeliness and that it is a unanimous decision on the group. Mr. Cunningham continued through the packet with a set of job classifications; a letter from the elementary secretaries regarding their group request for upgrade; and two letters from principals about their specific secretaries. He noted that there was another letter sent by all principals to the Superintendent that is not included in the packet. There is also a description of the elementary school job responsibilities. The next sections of the include information regarding the three individual requests, followed by a copy of the collective bargaining agreement. Attorney Chinni asked that he direct the Board to the provisions of the contract that the union is relying on. Mr. Cunningham stated they are the paid scales and the recognition clause. He noted that it is very clear that the Board of Education creates job descriptions and classifications and then is obligated to bargain the pay in response to the classifications and job description. When the Board of Education assigns duties outside of the job descriptions it has created and inside job descriptions associated with a different level of pay, it is incumbent upon the Board to make those duties appropriate to the classification they have assigned the position, or to compensate the position correctly for the duties they assigned. Attorney Chinni asked if there is an upgrade provision in the agreement. Mr. Cunningham stated there is a process of how upgrades are to be handled. He feels that that section is not applicable to these grievances. Attorney Chinni stated that she did not believe there is a violation of any recognition clause or the pay scale. Mr. Cunningham introduced all of the secretaries that were in attendance at the meeting. There were 12 secretaries in attendance supporting the grievances. Attorney Chinni advised the Board to recess to discuss the issue. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education meet in a non-public session for discussion. (8/0/0) The Board went into Executive Session at 10:00 pm. Mr. Robinson reconvened the Board at 10:30 pm on the disposition of the grievances brought forth. MOTION: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education denies the class action grievance. (7/0/0) Mr. Golas removed himself from the vote due to a conflict of interest. AMENDMENT: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Chairman of the Board will provide a written explanation of the Board's decision. (7/0/0) Mrs. Lok commented that there are two letters in the packet received. She did not see the letter from the ten elementary school principals. She does not believe they are endorsements of the action. Mr. Cunningham stated that not all grievances were addressed in this motion. AMENDMENT; Lok/Rizzo s.v. That the motion include all of the grievances brought forth to be denied. (7/0/0) L. PUBLIC
COMMENTS M. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS MOTION: Edwards/Hackett s.v. The Board of Education adjourned 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret
Hackett, Secretary |
|