|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 9, 2005 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
PRESENT: Edwards, Hackett, Huyler, Golas, Lok, O'Neill, Rizzo, Robinson, Thresher ABSENT: None ALSO ABSENT: None
Mr. Robinson led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes of April 26, 2005 Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the minutes of April 26, 2005. MOTION: Hackett/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adopts the minutes of the April 26, 2005 meeting. (8/0/1 - Huyler) B. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT - PART 1 Principal Diane Novak introduced the students and reviewed the project. Ms. Novak stated the project continued over two years, starting with exploring the software, completing a neighborhood map and learning about the students' neighborhoods. This year, they developed a brand new community. They called the grant Building Communities for the Future. They asked for volunteer student engineers to plan a new multicultural community with a population of 12,000-15,000 people. Students applied for several job openings such as transportation experts, utilities experts, construction experts, and planning and zoning experts. The students explained what the job entailed and what their group was responsible for. All the students participated in a school-based group, which met once or twice a month to complete tasks. They began with team building activities, and then created a map. They had experts from the community of Manchester to work with the students as consultants. Every school received a quadrant of the map to develop as a neighborhood, which they shared with other groups. The students put together houses, named the buildings and streets. They also voted on a name for the community, Engineer City. The map was mounted on foam board and was 12' x 12'. They also produced an ad campaign to encourage people to live in their city. They assembled the final pieces to the map and electrified the map learning about circuitry. Finally, they displayed the completed community created by the students in Manchester, New Britain, East Hartford and Willington. The teachers thanked all the consultants and volunteers who participated in this project. To explore Engineer City online, visit http://204.60.181.28 (name: highland - password: park). C. PUBLIC
COMMENTS 2. Stephanie
Knybel, 138 Bobby Lane. 3. Tom
Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road. D. PTA
COUNCIL REPORT E. CONSENT
CALENDAR 1) Personnel Action Appointments Resignations Emily Newton, guidance counselor at Illing Middle School, has submitted her letter of resignation for retirement purposes, approved effective the end of business on June 30, 2005. Ms. Newton has been with Manchester Public Schools since August 21, 1989. Leave
of Absence 2) Increase
in appropriation for Education Special Projects - $1,000 3) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects $1,500 4) Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $60,000 5) Approval of Change in Post Appropriation Budget Workshop Dates 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. (9/0/0) Mr. Robinson wished Mr. Dorsey well in his retirement. F. SUPERINTENDENT'S
REPORT - Part II She reminded the public that graduation is scheduled for Thursday, June 16 at the Bushnell in Hartford, beginning at 7:00 pm. 2. Historically
Black College Tour Presentation - Diane Kearney Ms. Kearney provided the Board members with a binder regarding the information on the tour. She stated this program has taken place over the last 20 years, thanks to the late Mr. Lou Irvin, who began the program. She provided a historical perspective. She stated the tour began in 1985 with a total of six students under the direction of Lou Irvin, at a time when diversity was minimal. Today, as many as 100 students apply and up to 45 students participate in the yearly event each February vacation. The tour is more than visiting schools; it is about self-understanding and a personal journey that gives validation to history and culture. She stated the tour is for everyone, even non-black students. The concept of the black college is routed in history. Chaney University, founded in 1837, and Lincoln University, founded in 1854, are the first two schools that were considered historically black colleges. Black colleges began a haven for students who were financially in need and rejected elsewhere. They were increasing recognized as positive instruments in integrating society. She thanked Erika Kelly, the director of the college tour, and her volunteer staff that support the efforts and philosophy of the black college experience. They organize and facilitate year-round training for these students. Erika Kelly thanked her committee who has worked hard to make the tours successful. She stated that her personal experience on the tour as a student motivates her to continue to direct the tour. She feels the tour means three things: to embrace culture, to be proud of your ethnic background, and to make you aware of college choices. Preparation for the tour consists of putting literature out to area high schools and announcements on radio or newspaper. By August, they have a selection of students who are interested in being part of the tour. The tour is broken into three clusters: Maryland and Virginia; North Carolina and South Carolina; and Georgia and Alabama. They try to go to a different cluster each year. By September, they offer an information session for those who are interested. An overview is given at this time. They intend to make the application process like a college process for the students. In October, interviews are held. By the end of October, up to 40 students have been selected to participate. Mandatory meetings are held for students and parents. Ms. Kearney noted that certified staff attends: a guidance counselor, an administrator, a social worker and a nurse. Additionally, a School Resource Officer has attended. Seniors are met with on an individual basis before each trip. Transcripts are needed and they ask that each student apply to all the schools visited. A slide presentation regarding the tour was given highlighting the schools that are visited. Catherine Lawrence, a senior at Manchester High School, has been on the tour for the last two years. She provided the Board with a brief explanation of why she went on the trip, explaining that first year was to explore and do some traveling. She stated that she was accepted into several of the schools they visited and she has chosen Virginia State University. She highly recommended the tour for any junior or senior regardless of race or ethnicity. She stated that it provided a wealth of opportunity for her. Mr. Robinson thanked them for their presentation. He stated that he had a chance to look through the material, and read two excerpts from the legacy of Lou Irvin written by Gwendolyn Page. Mr. Rizzo thanked them for their presentation as well. He noted that all of the schools are quite a distance from Manchester. He wondered how much this is factored in student decisions. He asked if there is support to help students going far away from home. Ms. Kelly stated that many students chose colleges where they have extended families. It has never been a big issue within the program. She stated that they continually meet with the families for preparation. Mr. Rizzo asked Ms. Kelly about her employment in Manchester. Ms. Kelly stated that she works for the Town of Vernon, and for the Adult Education Program at Manchester High School. She made a commitment to Mr. Irvin to carry on this program. Mrs. Hackett stated that this is the most comprehensive presentation regarding this topic that the Board has ever received which was very enlightening. She asked how many Manchester grads have attended HBCU. Ms. Kelly and Ms. Kearney responded that they would have to research this. Mrs. Hackett asked if all the students going on the trip are identified as college bound. Ms. Kelly stated that some students do not think they are college material, but goon the tour and work with counselors. Ms. Kearney noted that it is becoming increasingly more difficult for Manchester students to be part of the tour because most schools fund the ability for students to attend (up to $600 per student). It is already part of their budgets. Mrs. Hackett asked if a student who has been part of the program and home on break could give a presentation to the Board. 3. CMT
Update - Linda Gejda Mrs. Gejda distributed a packet to the Board members for background information. She stated that there are several ways to measure student achievement: teacher observations; daily work; classroom tests; report cards; district assessments; state assessments; and national assessments. The 2004 Mastery Tests were administered in September and October 2004 and preliminary results were received in February 2005, with statewide results were released at the end of March. They are administered to students in grades 4, 6, and 8 in mathematics, reading and writing. With very few exceptions, all students must take the CMT. The results are used by the school district and individual schools to make decisions about programs, instruction and individual student needs. They are also used by the State Department of Education to determine whether or not a school district has met adequate yearly progress as mandated by NCLB. The State has set proficiency targets for the tests, which indicate the percent of students who must score at the proficient level: for mathematics, 65%; for reading, 57%; and for writing, 70% at the basic level. The CMT results are broken down into different categories to ensure that all children are achieving academically. According to NCLB guidelines, all students must meet proficiency by the year 2013-2014. CMT results are reported out in 5 levels: below basic, basic, proficient, goal and advanced. In analyzing the date, the district compares results to CMT results over time, towns similar to Manchester (ERG F), and results reported for the State of Connecticut. She displayed the 16 towns that are in ERG F with Manchester. She reviewed the district results for 2004 compared to the ERG and State by the five levels for math, reading and writing by grade. In grade 4 for math, 81 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 81 percent and the State of 79 percent. In grade 4 for reading, 66 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 68 percent and the State of 67 percent. In grade 4 for writing, 82 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 83 percent and the State of 82 percent. In grade 6 for math, 75 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 82 percent and the State of 80 percent. In grade 6 for reading, 66 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 74 percent and the State of 72 percent. In grade 6 for writing, 79 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 85 percent and the State of 81 percent. In grade 8 for math, 70 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 78 percent and the State of 76 percent. In grade 8 for reading, 70 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 77 percent and the State of 75 percent. In grade 8 for writing, 76 percent of the students scored at proficient or above, compared to the ERG of 82 percent and the State of 81 percent. She noted that many of the students at the goal and proficient level are performing very similarly to those in the ERG and State. She also noted that it is important to look at performance over time. Student achievement over time in mathematics in grade 4 at the proficient or above level shows 82 percent in 2000, 84 percent in 2001, 78 percent in 2002, 77 percent in 2003, and 81 percent in 2004. She noted that they have stayed level for the most part. Student achievement over time in reading in grade 4 at the proficient or above level shows 73 percent in 2000, 74 percent in 2001, 67 percent in 2002, 67 percent in 2003, and 66 percent in 2004. Student achievement over time in writing in grade 4 at the proficient or above level shows 81 percent in 2000, 81 percent in 2001, 80 percent in 2002, 79 percent in 2003, and 82 percent in 2004. She noted that the district is testing more students, and there has been some consistency over the years. In addition to district results, the data is also broken into categories: gender, race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch eligibility; special education status; and English Language Learner status. She reviewed results based on these categories over the past five years for grade 4.
Grade 4
Math by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 4
Reading by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 4
Reading by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 4
Writing by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 4
Writing by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Student achievement over time in mathematics in grade 6 at the proficient or above level shows 75 percent in 2000, 83 percent in 2001, 83 percent in 2002, 79 percent in 2003, and 75 percent in 2004. She noted that they have stayed level for the most part. Student achievement over time in reading in grade 6 at the proficient or above level shows 71 percent in 2000, 75 percent in 2001, 76 percent in 2002, 75 percent in 2003, and 66 percent in 2004. Student achievement over time in writing in grade 6 at the proficient or above level shows 85 percent in 2000, 83 percent in 2001, 84 percent in 2002, 84 percent in 2003, and 79 percent in 2004. Grade 6
Math by Race/Ethnicity- percent at proficient or above: Grade 6
Math by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 6
Reading by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 6
Reading by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 6
Writing by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 6
Writing by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Student achievement over time in mathematics in grade 8 at the proficient or above level shows 65 percent in 2000, 69 percent in 2001, 72 percent in 2002, 68 percent in 2003, and 70 percent in 2004. She noted that they have stayed level for the most part. Student achievement over time in reading in grade 8 at the proficient or above level shows 68 percent in 2000, 66 percent in 2001, 72 percent in 2002, 69 percent in 2003, and 70 percent in 2004. Student achievement over time in writing in grade 8 at the proficient or above level shows 68 percent in 2000, 65 percent in 2001, 73 percent in 2002, 73 percent in 2003, and 76 percent in 2004. Grade 8
Math by Race/Ethnicity- percent at proficient or above: Grade 8
Math by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 8
Reading by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 8
Reading by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: Grade 8
Writing by Race/Ethnicity - percent at proficient or above: Grade 8
Writing by Economically Disadvantaged and Special Ed - percent at proficient
or above: There are several factors that need to be considered. In looking at ERG F, in planning for student needs, Manchester is second in number of economically disadvantaged students, is first in number of students from non-English speaking homes, and is last on the list for percent of kindergarten students who attended preschool. There is an increasing number of special education students required to test on grade level and all English Language Learners are required to take math on grade level, and after 10 months is a US school, must also take the reading and writing test. The results stated that regarding student progress, overall student achievement in math and reading has not significantly improved over time; the greatest improvement has been shown in the area of writing; and middle school programs need continued support. There also has not been significant progress in closing the achievement gap. In response to the testing results, administrators and educations spend time talking about meeting the needs of the variety of students in the classroom using differentiated instruction, early intervention planning, courageous conversations, additional student supports (summer school), school improvement plans, district improvement plan, and preparation for next program; Enhanced Education Through Technology Grant; and Data-driven Decision-making with data teams in each building. At the elementary level, there is a K-5 focus on reading comprehension; a collection of math data as part of student record; a new math textbook for grades 4 and 5; professional development regarding instructional strategies, learning and teaching strategies; and transition from grade 5 to grade 6. At the middle level, they have identified district-wide math assessments; professional development regarding instructional strategies; a CMT focus group support for students who are not proficient; DRA assessment in grade 6; accelerated algebra pilot; and pilot classroom resources for mathematics. There will be testing changes in the future. Testing will move from the fall to the spring in 2005-2006. The testing will occur in grades 3 through 8. There will be a new generation of CMT; in spring 2008, there will be a science CMT in grade 5 and 8; and, in spring 2006, proficiency targets will change (increase) in math (75%) and reading (67%). Regarding No Child Left Behind, district, schools and categories of students must EACH meet CMT proficiency targets. A minimum of 95 percent of all groups must participate in the CMT test, and the State Department of Education will be notifying Manchester of the NCLB results of the CMT 2004 administration. She stated that all of this information and the Commissioner's comments about statewide testing could be found on two websites: http://cmtreports.com and http://www.state.ct.us/sde/ . She noted that it would be put on the Board of Education website as well. Mrs. Lok asked if the administration has identified any trends that the Board should be especially concerned with, and has anything new been developed addressing those trends. Ms. England stated one of the biggest concerns is the lack of progress. They are looking to continue to help students make progress, particularly in the area of reading. She noted nice growth in writing; however, the reading scores are definitely a concern. Another concern is the continuing big discrepancy between students of color and white students. They have been discussing their strategies to work on closing the achievement gap as well as looking at the reading scores. She stated she would be conducting the district professional development for the elementary school staff in August. She believes they need to be focusing very carefully on reading comprehension. There are a tremendous amount of resources as well as great staff support in place. She would like to help teachers understand the instructional piece. Mrs. Gejda added that in addition to looking at student achievement, they are addressing as a district a number of other areas they are required to show some improvement in, in terms of being more inclusive in the classroom with special education students. They are trying to identify resources to make the changes successfully. Ms. England stated that it would become very important to determine how the data collection is informing instruction. Mrs. Lok agreed that there is an achievement gap that needs to be focused on. She asked that this item come back to the agenda, as she would like some time to review the data and submit questions. She asked if it could be put on the agenda earlier in the evening as well. Mr. Edwards stated that he was a bit frustrated at the scores, as all the graphs are flat. Therefore, they are not seeing the improvement that they were led to expect three years ago. He stated that Manchester has invested a lot in the reading program; adding reading consultants and literacy facilitators, and the least improvement is in reading. He noted that there has not been any significant progress in closing the achievement gap. He asked if the district needs a revolution in thought instead of an evolution in thought. Ms. England spoke about the reading scores, agreeing that Manchester has spent a lot of time and effort to improve them. She just attended a CMT workshop where it was said that it is much easier for districts to shift their scores in math and writing than it is to shift scores in reading. She feels that there are a lot of good pieces in place, which needs to be made more powerful. She would like to see more consistency in helping teachers understand how very explicit reading instruction needs to be for every student to be successful. Mr. Edwards noted that it is important to work from the bottom up, such as teaching the teachers with more training so that they will be effective in the classroom. He asked if the teachers have been asked what is in their way to raising scores. Mrs. Gejda stated they have been looking at student work and having discussions to see if students are learning, noting the difficulties some students experience. She believes that this should continue on a consistent basis. She stated that there are a couple of schools trying to find time for portfolio discussions and academic reviews. Mr. Edwards asked to hear more about courageous conversations that was noted in the presentation. He feels this program can go along way to closing many types of gaps. He stated that if there were room in the conversations for a Board member, he would make himself available, as he is very interested in the program. Mr. Robinson suggested to Board members that this item is coming back to the agenda, and reminded them there is still a lengthy agenda to go through. Mr. Rizzo asked if it would be a fair comparison to take grade 4 scores in 2000 and compare them to grade 6 scores in 2002 and grade 8 scores in 2004. He realizes that there may be some differences in the students. Mrs. Gejda stated that technically this would be the procedure; however, they have to make sure that the students reviewed are the students who have been together over that period of time. She stated that she could get cohort data for the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Rizzo believes that there is something that happens in grade 7. He asked what is being done at the middle school level. Mrs. Gejda stated she could get this information to the Board. She also stated that the legislation needs to be looked at and what it is requiring the district to do with the CMT test. She feels the scores over the last five years have been consistent, and reminded the Board they are testing more students at each grade level. G. NEW
BUSINESS Mrs. Luce shared some data about Verplanck School. It is a total Title I school, which means that over 50 percent of the children are eligible for free and reduced lunch. At Verplanck, 58.9 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunch. She stated that it is also significant to note that 30.9 percent of students come from a cluster-housing complex known as Squire Village. Therefore, many families are victims of situations and generational poverty. They do not believe that poverty of condition does not equal poverty of the mind. The population does not take food, shelter or clothing for granted. It seems appropriate for them to be proactive in their action. Friends of Verplanck would provide packets of books to students at registration, transportation to school events and medical appointments, after-school clubs that focus on the performing arts, and field trips. The New York law firm has offered to establish Friends of Verplanck, Inc. which would be organized as a Connecticut non-profit, non-stock corporation and would register as a 501 C3 tax exempt corporation with the Internal Revenue service. She distributed a copy of the proposal to the Board members. Mrs. Lok thanked Mrs. Luce for the presentation. She complimented Mrs. Luce on the special interactions she has at her school with the students at Verplanck. She stated that she really likes this idea, and asked how funds will be solicited. Mrs. Luce stated that there will be an advisory Board, and one of the partners of the law firm will guide the school in terms of corporations from who they will solicit funds. Mrs. Lok asked if she could make a motion on this item. Mr. Robinson stated it was under New Business. Mrs. Lok stated she would not object moving it forward this meeting, if other Board members did not object. Mr. Edwards asked what the organization could do for Verplanck that the PTA can't do. Mrs. Luce stated it could provide the school with an infinite number of field trips. They are finding the assessment at the end of the year shows a lot of growth. The students do not have a lot of financial resources to go on these field trips. They want to provide the students with more experiences than they are currently able to do. Mr. Edwards asked if there was some legal limitation of the PTA raising these kinds of funds for disbursement on field trips. Mrs. Luce stated that she doesn't know that the PTA is a fundraising organization, but rather a parent/teacher organization. Fundraising has been difficult in the past and the families don't have the resources. Mr. Rizzo stated that he always welcomes an innovative idea like this as it is a way of getting a lot of people involved and making them aware of the needs. He had no objection of moving it forward at this meeting. Mr. Robinson asked if it is technically necessary for the Board of Education to approve this organization. Attorney Libby stated that it was more of a permission sought from the Board to move forward. Mr. Robinson made a friendly amendment to move this item to Old Business. MOTION: Lok/Hackett s.v. The Board of Education supports the Superintendent's recommendation the creation of a non-profit organization entitled Friends of Verplanck. (9/0/0) Mr. Edwards noted an effort to bring organization finances under the Board of Education control as some point in the past. He asked if this is approved, would the Board get involved in handling the funds. Mrs. Brooks stated the Board would not have to get involved in it, but would recognize the fact that it exists. Mr. Golas stated that this came before the Personnel and Finance Committee. It is his opinion that the Board does not need to approve this, as it is a separate organization run by an advisory board. Mrs. Lok asked that when the solicitations for funds go out that they consider sending them to parents of alumni or alumni who have incomes. 2. Waddell/Bowers
Packing Proposal - Tom Alexander Mr. Alexander stated that the staff at Bowers and Waddell approached him. Although schools had to pack up last year for renovations, there is a difference this year in that the last day of school is June 17, and the rooms need to be empty by Monday. With the additionally duties at the end of the year, it will be hard to achieve this. He asked the Board to seriously consider this request as other schools will come across the same problem in future years for renovations. Mrs. Lok requested that this item be considered Old Business, as the Board did previously take this item into consideration with the last Superintendent. There was no objection to this. MOTION: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education denies this request. (9/0/0) Mrs. Lok thinks that Mr. Alexander is right that other schools will experience this and it is something the Board will have to look at over the next several years. However, given the decision made early for Keeney Street School to make up a day that they lost, it would be unfair of the Board to reverse the situation at two other schools. 3. I.P.
Telephony Update Mr. McCoy distributed the survey results from the schools that were taken a year ago. It assesses the count of phones that are needed, which is about 1,500. Mrs. Brooks summarized the financial information. They reviewed the original budget estimate for the fiber grant, and the project was estimated at $2.8M, with resources being $2.5M in lease purchase and an estimate of $350,000 from a State grant. The grant came in at $326,000; however, the entire project was done for $2.5M, leaving the grant not used at all. The previous business manager and town officials recommended that any excess funds be used for associated projects benefiting all fiber users, security cameras and telephones. With this project, they would be avoiding an annual expense of $95,000. She feels it is a wonderful opportunity to pilot without it coming out of the operating budget. In the future, the cost for the IP telephony for the school district would be approximately $50,000-$65,000, depending on the cost of the staff person, the number of telephones purchased, and residual telephone connection that would have to be kept in each building and the T1 connections. This would give the Board a savings of approximately $30,000-$40,000 per year, while providing an increase in function ability. Mr. McCoy stated that the Board pays for part of the Information System staff, which would include this staff. The person hired would be dedicated to the telephony application, its management and anything new associated with it. A new application would be the autodial feature, which may occur after initial installation. Mrs. Lok asked if there would be any formal agreement in place should any issues of priority come up. Mr. McCoy stated that the ongoing relationship of the IS organization with the Board of Education and the Town is the only formality in place. He asked if she would require a more formal commitment. Mrs. Lok stated that her question not only focuses on the usage of the system, but also on the decision making process in the future. Mr. McCoy clarified that this would be a single person hired which would work for both the Board of Education and the Town. They do not anticipate hiring a staff for this project. Mr. Edwards asked if there is anything else this money might be used for. Mrs. Brooks stated that the only place she could see the money being used to pay off one year principal and interest on the fiber. Other than that, it should be used for something that benefits everyone who uses the fiber system. In next year's budget, the lease payment is $165,000. Mr. Edwards stated he supported the idea for a pilot program for IP Telephony. However, given recent budget developments, this is going to be a very tight budget year. He is reluctant to spend this money if it could be allocated to other items in a year where educational services are going to suffer. Mr. Robinson asked for a clarification for the expenditures for the 05-06 year versus the following years. Mr. McCoy stated there is an opportunity to create a cash flow to the Board of Education and Town proportionately out of redirecting SBC payments for Centrex. Over time, the budgets are relieved from upwards of $95,000. He believes this can increase by another $10,000. He feels that this shouldn't be a difficult decision. Mr. Robinson asked for more clarification. Mrs. Brooks stated that each year the Board should recognize an avoidance of $95,000 that would be going to SBC if the Board continued status quo. The cost in future years, 2006-07 and after, would be approximately $55,000-$65,000 to support a staff person, the additional telephone lines needed, and the T1 connections. This would provide an annual savings of $30,000-$40,000 per year. As SBC raises their rates, the savings would grow. The $165,000 is currently in the budget for fiber payments for the next three years. Mr. Rizzo asked what year the $95,000 would be saved. Mrs. Brook clarified that it would be in fiscal year 05-06, in the budget just approved by the Board. The cost would be picked up in fiscal year 2007. Mr. Rizzo asked for clarification for the $165,000 for fiber. Mrs. Brooks stated that it is to be spent in fiscal year 2006 and the next three years. This is currently in the budget, and probably the only thing that could be paid for out of this grant. Mr. Edwards stated that all of the savings are predicated on the notion that the pilot will be successful. He asked if it is not successful, and the Board decides to keep the current system, the Board wouldn't realize any savings and the money would have been spent. Mr. McCoy stated that this was fair to say; however, the vendor has said if the pilot fails, they will take back the cost of their computers. They are very confident that this pilot will work. Mrs. Lok stated that she is not comfortable with this agreement between the Town and the Board, which may have more to do with current, trust issues rather than the pilot itself. She asked to make a motion to have the item moved to the Personnel and Finance Committee. Mr. McCoy stated that the Board of Directors was meeting the next day, and he intended to take this item before them. He reminded the Board there are time frames involved in this process. Mr. Golas stated that the Personnel and Finance Committee could only give a clear report of the numbers presented, but could not recommend that this would be a better system as they do not have that expertise. Mr. Rizzo agreed that more information would not surface in Committee than what has already been provided. He believes that technical information should come from Mr. McCoy and that the Board will have to rely on that. He understands the trust issues that Mrs. Lok refers to. Mrs. O'Neill stated the reason for the lawsuit with SBC was due to the fiber optic work. She feels it has been brewing for years, and that this is the next phase to the project. She feels that the Board should move on this action. She believes it is an easy decision that the Board should move forward with. Mr. Robinson
stated that the choices are to move this item to Committee, to move
it to Old Business on the next agenda, or move the item forward at this
meeting waving the rules to move it to Old Business. MOTION: Lok/Hackett s.v. The Board of Education moves this topic to the Personnel and Finance Committee for further study and a recommendation to the Board. (8/1/0 - Rizzo opposed) Mr. Edwards stated he would support the motion. He suggested that this also would be a perfect topic for a budget workshop. He feels it is the Board's duty to look for all sources of revenue to close the $800,000 gap imposed by the Board of Directors. He feels the Board has to concentrate on cutting those things that are non-mandated and not core educational. He feels this item fits both of those criteria. He also believes that the Board should do this, but needs to keep in mind the timing of the costs at a severe budget time. Mrs. Hackett stated that conceptually this sounds like a good idea. She noted that many Board members are cautious at this time, and believes it would be a good topic for discussion and review at the Personnel and Finance Committee. She agrees that it could also be discussed at the budget workshop. Mr. Golas asked that Mrs. Lok attend the Personnel and Finance Committee to explain the ongoing agreement problems between the Town and Board. The meeting would be held on May 16. Mr. Robinson stated the Committee could review this; there is a budget workshop on May 19, and the full Board could take it as Old Business at the next meeting on May 23. He stated that he would support the motion on this basis. Mr. Rizzo stated the idea of creating a policy or agreement is not something the Personnel and Finance Committee would write. This is something the Superintendent would have to put together and present to the Personnel and Finance Committee for review, approval and recommendation to the Board. Mr. Robinson stated that an agreement would not be completed by May 23. He feels that the Committee could provide guidance on the cost and the avoidance of cost. He was not aware that the Board of Directors was anticipating action on the following evening. 4. MHS
Design - Design Partnership of Cambridge Mr. Epstein gave a brief introduction stating that a few months ago, the committee for the selection of consultants hired Design Partnership of Cambridge and Turner Construction. The construction manager will monitor construction processes, scheduling, and costs, and are doing the estimates. Design Partnership will oversee the engineers, structural, mechanical and civil engineers. They have met with Mr. Sierakowski and staff trying to take the program to develop it beyond what was originally identified in the referendum. They have met with the Public Works Department, Town Planner, Building Officials, Fire Department and Police Department to gain knowledge about the project. They are presenting a schematic design, which is a basic concept trying to understand the cost and space. They will be looking for approval for demographics. He stated the demographic study has been done over since the project started, and they want to make sure the Board agrees on the overall space plan, how the addition lays out, how the classrooms are being reconfigured, and that they send it on to the Town Building Committee. The Town Building Committee will administrate the construction, make sure the program is adhered to, and make sure the project is maintained within budget. Mr. Schroder briefly reviewed the proposed schematic design. He stated it was based upon the building project that was approved at the town referendum for a new grade 9 wing at Manchester High School. They interviewed selected staff members and administration to learn about the current educational programs, program of studies that are offered at the high school, as well as to learn what new and expanded programs might be anticipated for the future. The report from the school department was that enrollment projection would support a design for a new 2000 student high school, plus 120 alternative high school students. They are seeking approval for a design enrollment of 2120 students. To check the educational specifications, both for the grade 9 wing as well as the rest of the high school, they analyzed the courses to be offered. They anticipated student participation levels in each course, divided that by the desired class size and the desired utilization rates for classrooms, and generated the required number of teaching stations necessary to support the design enrollment. They gave a handout updated from the Building and Sites Committee. He reviewed the last two pages, which summarized the instructional spaces that are proposed. They concluded 130 core-teaching stations are needed in the building, 31 of which are required for the grade 9 wing. In addition to the 130, there are a couple of unassigned spaces, so they are proposing 132 teaching station anticipating growth and changes in participation in one course or another. Mr. Bell described the schematic. They looked at what was developed to date in the referendum plan. They looked at the site plan and areas that could be developed for the grade 9 wing. This included the front of the building, where the portables currently exist, and a large flat area near the fields. These were all reject due to space, proximity to other classrooms and vehicular concerns. The area originally presented at the referendum is suitable for new construction and is adjacent to the acquired property. This area would support a bus loop, and parking as well. This location comes with some issues as it is the loading area of the school and the shops would not have a delivery area. The last option they reviewed was in the courtyard, and was rejected based on logistical issues and because it would be the most disruptive to the school through the construction period. They drew up diagrams to test out the locations to determine the pros and cons. They also looked at adding on small portions around the school. They rejected this because it detracts from the cohesiveness of the academy approach. Reviewing the original plan, they determined by relocating one of the shops and grouping the shops together would alleviate the problem of truck deliveries to this area. Also, by creating a bus loop, it would pull students away from the loading dock area. He presented a map showing the areas of the school to be modified. They found that they could also relieve some of the student traffic congestion within the current building. They proposed putting windows into the arts spaces, to show off some student work and support supervision within the building. Within the span, they studies ideas on how to save space without cutting the program. He stated that this plan is about 11,000 square feet smaller than the one at the referendum plan, and a big part of this is in the circulation for a more efficient use throughout the school. The savings in square footage can translate directly into renovating other parts of the existing building. There are also proposals of relocating the TV studio with the graphics program. This supports programs sharing space for economies. They would also group World Language classes and business classes together within the existing building. They reviewed the second floor to reparation a few buildings to make sure the classrooms are equitable. Mr. Robinson suggested moving this to Old Business at this meeting. There was no objection to this. Mrs. O'Neill clarified that they met on the Building and Sites Committee on April 27 with several suggestions. She asked if these were incorporated into this plan. Ms. Ouellette stated that she met with the firm and those issues were addressed. The architect stated there is an additional unassigned classroom in the new wing for future expansion and flexibility. Ms. Ouellette asked Mr. Sierakowski to explain the flexibility with clusters with regard to teaming. Mr. Sierakowski
stated the flexibility was key to the design. For example, they are
getting away from traditional computer labs and moving towards flexible
computer use with rechargeable laptops on carts. The issue of program
flexibility is also paramount. Although it is designed as a grade 9
wing, it is also designed so that it could be set up in a traditional
departmental model or team-spaced. Although grade 9 students will be
in the wing for their core academic classes, they will also utilize
other parts of the building for electives, library and the cafeteria.
Mr. Sierakowski stated nothing would be done differently as the design is flexible. Mrs. O'Neill asked about the issue of office space and teacher workstations. Mr. Sierakowski stated that currently teachers do not have preparation or work space. The only common area for teachers is one room of 400 square feet for 170 people. There are several small departmental offices scattered about the building currently which can accommodate two or three people at a time. There is a definite need for workspace. There also is no faculty dining space. Mrs. O'Neill asked how much space was used for faculty use. The architects stated that no space was added for faculty work areas; the space that was added was for a faculty dining area. Faculty work areas are in found space in the existing building. Mr. Sierakowski stated that reconfiguring areas provided faculty workspace. Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on this item. MOTION: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education accepts the schematic design as presented. (9/0/0) 5. School
Bell Discussion Mrs. Lok stated it was suggested that a Board of Education member author an article for the publication known as the School Bell. She does not have a strong opposition to this idea; however, she has some concerns. She stated that she would like it clearly in the record what the Board's intentions are regarding this article, so that in the future, we prevent any Board member from making this publication, which is paid for Board of Education funds, to voice their own opinions or platforms. She was surprised that it was approved in committee and moved forward. Mr. Edwards stated the original idea was based upon examination from a publication from the Bloomfield Public Schools, which featured a perspective from their Board of Education. He volunteered to write this; however, he understands Mrs. Lok's concern based upon other political bodies in Manchester. It is not his intention to make it a political piece. It is published four times a year and believes the Board can come up with a broad enough topic that it would not go out of style quickly. He would also agree that the writing responsibility is circulated through the Board members. Mr. Robinson suggested referring this to the Community Relations Committee. He stated the article is intended to promote real events happening in the school system, which would be factual. It is not intended to be politically motivated. He suggested the committee make appropriate editorial standards. Mrs. Hackett stated that she appreciates the ideas that have come from the committee. As the founder of this publication, she has a concern that at the onset of the project, it was decided to be a completely non-political publication. Although the current Board has good intentions, she fears about the future. She repeated that the publication is funded through taxpayer money. She does not want to dilute the purpose of the newsletter. She feels that there are other avenues for Board members to use. She would like it to go back to the committee level for further discussion. H. COMMITTEE
REPORTS I. COMMUNICATIONS J. PUBLIC
COMMENTS K. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS MOTION: Edwards/Rizzo s.v. The Board of Education adjourned 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret
Hackett, Secretary |
|