|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT:
Edwards, Golas, Lok, O'Neill (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Rizzo, ABSENT: Hackett, Huyler ALSO
Mr. Robinson called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Robinson led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes of September 12, 2005 Mr. Robinson asked for a motion on the minutes of September 12, 2005. MOTION:
Rizzo/Thresher s.v. The Board of Education adopts the minutes of the
September 12, 2005 Board of Education meeting. (4/0/2) Ms. Lok and
Recognition Awards - Teacher of the Year Superintendent Ouellette introduced the Teacher of the Year candidates for 2005, as well as the Teacher of the Year for Manchester for 2005, and presented them with certificates of recognition from the Manchester Board of Education. Present were Stephanie Aceto, Teacher of the Year for Nathan Hale Elementary School and her principal Margi Bialeck, Joyce Yarnot, Teacher of the Year for Illing Middle School and Vice-Principal, Mike Saimond, Linda Mason, Teacher of the Year for Washington Media Magnet Elementary School, and Principal Cynthia Womack, Jenna Brohinsky, Teacher of the Year for Bennet Middle School, and Principal Ann Richardson, and Manchester High School Principal Don Sierakowski. Christopher White, Teacher of the Year for Manchester High School, was not able to be present. Superintendent Ouellette introduced Dave Mazzotta, Manchester's Teacher of the Year, from Bentley Alternative School, and his principal, David Yellen. Each principal gave a brief explanation as to why their teacher was picked as their school's teacher of the year. Dave Mazzotta spoke briefly on how much he appreciated the honor of being chosen as Manchester's Teacher of the Year, and how fortunate he was to work with such a wonderful group of teachers at the Bentley Alternative Education program, and for such a great school system. C. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Stephanie Knybel, 138 Bobby Lane, thanked the superintendent for doing such a great job this past year, her first year as superintendent. 2. Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road, congratulated all the Teacher of the Year candidates, as well as Dave Mazzotta for being chosen Teacher of the Year for Manchester. He thanked Mrs. Tait for attending the Commission of People With Disabilities meeting. He mentioned an article in National Geographic on Africa, and talked about articles on the No Child Left Behind Act that he will forward to Mrs. Burgess, Assistant Superintendent. D. CONSENT
CALENDAR D2.
Appropriation for Education Special Projects - $68,855 D3.
Appropriation for Education Special Projects - $1,577,670 D4.
Permission to Apply for Education Special Projects - $2,000 D5.
Extended Field Trip Request - Washington Elementary School D6. Secretarial Contract Ratification (July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2007) MOTION:
Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Board of Education moves to adopt the Items on
the Mr. Edwards
questioned the language regarding health care for Item D8, and asked
if it had been Mrs. O'Neill
asked about the cost per student on Item D5, questioning if it was only
$35 per E. Superintendent's Report E1.
Strategic Plan Evaluation - Goal I - Accountability for Success for Superintendent Ouellette informed the Board that the evaluation of the Strategic Plan would be presented one goal at a time per Board meeting. Mrs. Burgess reviewed Goal I with a PowerPoint presentation. Some of the highlights included: Goal I Part A: Efforts-based environment: all stakeholders to work together based on the belief all children can learn. Goal
I Part A: Action steps: Goal I Part B: Data driven curriculum and decision-making. Goal
I Part B: Action steps: Goal I Part C: Increase diversity enrollment in advanced courses. Goal
I Part C: Action steps: Goal
I Part D: Action steps: Mrs. Burgess outlined the next steps that need to be taken: Begin the
conversation in spring 2005 for the Strategic Plan for 2007-2010, and
focus on three major goals: Mrs. Lok thanked Mrs. Burgess for breaking the Strategic Plan down so the Board could make more sense of it. She also thanked Dr. Tognalli for his help as well. Mr. Rizzo also thanked Mrs. Burgess for her presentation, and Dr. Tognalli for his help on this project. He questioned the assessment piece and asked if the approach was contrary to the No Child Left Behind Act. Mrs. Burgess responded saying they work hand-in-hand, and explained about the testing skills. Dr. Tognalli responded saying that the district has gone out of its way to mimic what is required, and the proficiencies support that testing. There was further discussion regarding the revisions to the CMT's and how the assessments are becoming more performance based. Mr. Rizzo asked about professional development and CEU requests, and if they are evaluated by the Strategic Plan framework. Mrs. Burgess answered that they were. Mr. Rizzo also asked about the importance of the Guidance Director position. Dr. Tognalli responded saying it is important since we need to provide continuity between the grades, to know how each piece fits. E2. Accelerated Middle School Schedule/Swing Space Discussion Superintendent Ouellette told the Board that she sees this as a three phase plan, and that there has been an on going discussion of the possibility of accelerating the Bennet project over the past five months. She explained that she and the Central office team have spent many weeks researching the feasibility of dissolving Bennet Middle School in June 2006. The Town Building Committee has given their authorization to examine cost analysis from an educational perspective. She knows it would be a tremendous saving to the Town, (approximately over 1.8 million, with normal inflation of 3% a year) if construction were to begin early. There is also a concern of the escalation on building materials within the next two years due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The superintendent has consulted with some experts in the field to determine how feasible the accelerated schedule will accommodate, respectfully, our middle schools students' education. She mentioned that in July, she and the Central Office team met with Pauline Fusco, the principal of Sunset Ridge School (a grade six school) in East Hartford, and that the principal provided them with great information and suggestions on designing a successful 6th grade Academy. The school embraces a transitional/preparatory school philosophy as a way of assisting students' adjustment to middle school. They follow a similar curriculum to when East Hartford used a K-6 elementary school model. However, they made adjustments with the instructional strategies used in the classroom. The superintendent also mentioned that as a point of interest, they provide their students with a healthy life style break and have splendid fields. The East Hartford School system developed their sixth grade school model during an 18-month period of time and did not have to contend with a "swing space" plan. The Central Office team also made a visit to Gideon Wells (Grade 6 Academy). The superintendent said the school is beautiful, and in speaking with the administration, it was helpful to note that they operate as an elementary model, rather than a middle school. It appears that there are some differences compared to the East Hartford Academy. The superintendent explained that she is in the process of arranging a visit to Keigwin Annex in Middletown. (Please note that the CSDE recognizes a stand-alone Grade 6 school as an elementary school). The superintendent and Mrs. Brooks, Director of Business and Operations, met with Louise Guarnaccia, Director of Operations, and Mark Pellegrini, Director of Neighborhood Services and Economic Development, to discuss swing space options and zoning regulations for housing a temporary grade six campus. She mentioned that zoning regulations appear to be more lenient about placing a temporary school in a residential setting as opposed to a business approved zone, and that she has explored all options including the possibility of a modular campus. The superintendent also mentioned that The Downes Group had presented, as a possible option, setting a modular campus off site and possibly at Illing. She felt that although still a possibility certainly, it is a disservice to inconvenience and disrupt another school facility to a large magnitude. As a reminder, she mentioned that we would also be in the first phase of construction for Manchester High School. The superintendent explained to the Board that she has contacted area superintendents regarding the availability of possible rental space for a possible temporary Bennet Middle School, but no such options are available. She and Mrs. Brooks also looked at rental space as a temporary solution. It was felt by both Mrs. Brooks and the superintendent that the renovations to rental property were not practical and cost effective. However, in casual conversations with some well-informed parents, the K-6 temporary configuration appears to be the favored solution to the swing space dilemma. She has also consulted with her principals individually with regards to dissolving Bennet and reconfiguring the schools as K-6 for a two-year period of time. The superintendent mentioned that this team of administrators is wonderful, and they have acknowledged that this is a K-12 issue and are willing to assist in any way to make this transition period smooth for the Bennet students and staff. Most were favorable on holding their students until grade 6th and then transitioning them to middle school. The superintendent further explained that in speaking with the State Department of Education, they have no issues or concerns if we temporarily dissolve Bennet. We would need to keep them informed of such changes. She also
mentioned that we have been advised by David Wedge, Education Manager,
in the Office of School Facilities at the CT. State Department of Education,
of the following information: Mr. Wedge was asked if the Board of Education could submit towards reimbursement on all ongoing projects that were established prior to May 31, 2005. His response was that he would "give us that" and to submit and see what others say. He asked that we contact one of his financial staff to work out a documentation format. The superintendent said that we will submit for all Waddell and Bowers work, as well as Nathan Hale, Buckley, and Bennet work, and see what happens. Superintendent Ouellette explained that the Building Committee, in consultation with the middle school principals, Mrs. Brooks, and herself, have announced Gilbane, for both Illing and Bennet, as the construction firm overseeing the project in the capacity of construction manager, and Design Partnership of Cambridge as the architectural firm named for the Bennet project. Both are highly respected in the field, and bring a tremendous amount of talent and expertise to restoring a Historical Building. Friar Associates is the architectural firm named for the Illing project. The superintendent
said the next steps are: The superintendent mentioned that Mr. Cuprak and Dr. Richardson, the Bennet and Illing Principals, are in the process of designing an action plan for merging both schools and blending two different school cultures. The superintendent, Attorney Libby, and Mrs. Brooks will need to meet with local bargaining unit leaders to begin discussions and designing an action plan with the reorganization of staff within the district. Mrs. Burgess will begin to meet with curricula leaders and supervisors to review the current 6th grade curricula in all content and begin designing the new 6th grade Academy curriculum, report cards, assessments, etc., and redesigning a temporary curriculum, should the Board endorse the K-6 two year model. Mrs. Brooks will work with Keith Epstein, Facilities Unit Manage, and Louise Guarnaccia, Director of Operations, and begin processing the paperwork for either a temporary modular campus or relocatables to support the K-6 transition plan. As a reminder to the Board, the superintendent mentioned that the more conservative we are with financing our swing space, the more funds can be allocated directly to the Bennet Project. Mrs. Brooks will also be analyzing the 2006-2007 budget implications, in particular, if we were to dissolve Bennet in June 2006. In addition, a projection on transportation costs and the bus capacity for transporting students using the K-6 model will be needed. The superintendent explained that she will begin to discuss this action plan with the ten elementary and two middle school PTA's, and at staff meetings, to keep everyone adequately informed of the plan of action. Superintendent Ouellette further explained that the district certainly has an ambitious project and schedule ahead of them. Every one is very enthusiastic and excited on the possibilities ahead. She thanked the parents, staff, and students for their patience in waiting for the delivery of accurate information, as there are so many rumors out there, and asked them to keep in close contact with their principals and keep a watch on the next two Board meetings, as more information will follow. Action plans to vacate Bennet Middle School will be presented at the October 20th and November 14th Board of Education meetings, and ultimately a decision will be made by the Board. She welcomed the community's thoughts on swing space, and said they could email her at kouellette@ci.manchester.ct.us. Mr. Rizzo wanted to clarify that any swing space would be reimbursed by the State if it is used as a planned program, and Superintendent Ouellette confirmed that it would be reimbursable. Mrs. Brooks mentioned that any relocatables that are leased would also be reimbursed by the State. Mrs. O'Neill asked about space at Waddell, and if used for swing space and then used later for Head Start and all day kindergarten, would it be reimbursable. Mrs. Brooks advised her that if the space is then used for a program, it would be reimbursable by the State. Mrs. O'Neill asked if there has been a comprehensive plan looked at for Head Start and the use of the swing space. Superintendent Ouellette replied that they have looked at a comprehensive plan for the Early Learning Center, and that certainly is her hope, to relocate the Head Start program to that facility. It could also be an option as an all day kindergarten or adult education. Mrs. O'Neill said that it is looking good that, potentially, Head Start could be spread throughout the district in several of the elementary schools. She asked if there would be an update on the Head Start program, and the superintendent responded that an update would be given at a Board meeting as soon as we here back from the State Department on the funding. Mrs. O'Neill asked if there were incentives for all day kindergarten, similar to the Head Start program, possibly any incentives such as grants. Superintendent Ouellette asked that Kate England research this question for Mrs. O'Neill. Mr. Edwards asked for clarification on reimbursables. He mentioned that there was a lot of work to do by the end of the school year, if we were to bring Bennet to a close at the end of this school year. His concern is the time frame for doing everything. Superintendent Ouellette told him that she is looking to use relocatable classrooms sparingly, as she feels we could accommodate our 6th graders in-house. Some school campuses will not be conducive for relocatables and other options will have to be looked at. E3. Title I Funding Update - Kate England Superintendent Ouellette told the Board that at the September 12th meeting, a Board member requested an update regarding the Title I funding. Ms. Kate England presented the Board with that update. Ms. England handed out the following chart to the Board, and briefly explained the difference in Title I funding from last year to this year. The district has received $86,355 less funding than last year from the State. Title I Funding Update September 26, 2005 Item Total Title
I Allocation NCLB Related
Costs District
Reservations* Allocation
to Schools *District
Reservations include costs for items such as: Mr. England explained that since we are receiving $86,355 less this year, the first area that was cut, in most of the Title I schools, was tutoring, then professional development and instructional supplies were cut at each school. Mrs. O'Neill asked why Title I funds go down, and Ms. England responded saying that it is a blanket cut from the Federal government to the State. Ms. England assured the Board that Title I funds are being spent in a way that will benefit the district the most. Mrs. O'Neill asked if the district population changes, do we have to wait for the census again. Ms. England responded that the State uses the same census information a couple of years in a row. Mrs. O'Neill asked if with a new census, will our district possibly see more Title I schools. Ms. England didn't feel that would be the case, but said that when the October 1st enrollment count comes out, she would have more information to look at. Mrs. O'Neill asked that another update be given to the Board when Ms. England has further information. Superintendent Ouellette responded by asking Ms. England to forward the Board members a memo when she has the information put together. Ms. Lok thanked Ms. England for the report, and said she was troubled by the reduction in tutors. She asked if that was the best choice, or were there other options. Ms. England said they really had no other choice, since much of the funding is spent on certified staff. Ms. England outlined that certified staff have a higher level of education to work with the children, where the tutors don't necessarily have the same training, which was an important factor in the decision making for cuts. She also mentioned that tutors work with the most at-risk students, and when having to choose between having tutors or certified staff kept on to work with those students, she felt it was more important to have the certified staff kept on, since they have more specialized training. Ms. Lok asked if we should be looking at volunteers from the community to help out, and Ms. England said she would not discourage volunteers from helping out. F. OLD BUSINESS F1.
Participation in Connecticut's No Child Left Behind Lawsuit - Superintendent Ouellette explained that at the September 12th Board of Education meeting, Attorney Libby presented the public and the Board, information on a lawsuit that the Connecticut State Department of Education has recently brought against the Federal Government over problems inherent in the No Child Left Behind Act. Some of these problems are insufficiency of funding, for new mandates; others are provisions that are costly compliance issues that put burdens on school district and students. The superintendent stated that many Board of Education districts in Connecticut have added their support to the Connecticut State Department of Education lawsuit, by simply passing a resolution stating that support. This does not entail funding to the State or any other services in kind. The superintendent further explained that at that meeting, the Board asked that we write the Ct. State Department of Education, and request assurance that any local boards of education, which do lend their support of this lawsuit will not be asked for any financial support, or in the future, or for any support of in-kind services. Attorney Libby sent a letter to the CT. State Department of Education on September 14th, and on Sept. 26, the superintendent spoke with Richard Kehoe, Special Counsel from the Attorney General's Office, who provided the Board with a written statement, relinquishing any financial or in-kind obligations from the Board if they support the lawsuit. The superintendent told the Board that her intent, this evening, is to have a detailed cost analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act presented to the Board by Mrs. Brooks, with support from Ms. Burgess, and Ms. England. Mrs. Brooks explained the financial impact on Manchester Public Schools by the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act for the fiscal year 2004-05. She stated that cost analysis relied on both objective data and professional judgment, and that these results should be viewed as cost estimates, not precise numbers. Ms. Brooks said that the following data was used to determine costs: salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, and vendor contracts. Costs were divided into nine broad categories reflecting the requirements of No Child Left Behind. She stated the cost analysis to ensure highly qualified staff: teachers and paraprofessionals is $174,047; parent involvement and notification is $31,241; Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is $56,648; schools identified for improvement (Title I and non-Title I) is $90,086; to assess English Language Learners (ELLs) for English language proficiency is $48,247; to provide public school choice is $10,434; to provide supplemental education services is $5,179; for curriculum and assessment is $488,700; and for overall additional NCLB requirements is $271,065, for a total impact to our school system for the 2004-05 school year of $1,175,648. Mr. Edwards stated that this was a big list, and noted that this total is much larger than what the district receives for Title I funding. He asked, out of all these categories, what would the district not like to do. Ms. England responded that the issue that makes the most sense to her to do away with is the choice issue, and transportation costs involved with it, seeing that the education level at Bennet and Illing Middle Schools are the same. Another issue she felt could be done away with is the mandated letters to all the district parents, notifying them of the NCLB issues. Ms. Burgess mentioned that this means sending out a mailing of 7,800 letters that require printing, stuffing envelopes, labels, postage, and secretarial help to get these letters out. The district gets this mandate at least two or three times a year. Mr. Edwards mentioned that a lot of the categories are items that we want to spend our money on. He mentioned some states are wondering if they should even take the Title I money, and if they don't, are they then beholden to the No Child Left Behind Act. He felt that if we were to look at what the government really makes us spend the money on, we would get a better picture of the real costs, and it would not come near the total of $1,175,648. Mr. Robinson said he would entertain a motion, and the superintendent read a suggested motion from the State: "The Manchester Board of Education supports the State of Connecticut's No Child Left Behind lawsuit against the United States Department of Education." Ms. Lok, Mr. Rizzo, Mrs. O'Neill, Mr. Golas, and Mr. Robinson expressed their support for the motion. Mr. Edwards expressed his concerns and why he did not support the motion. MOTION: Lok/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education moves to support the suit as presented by the Superintendent of Schools, and expressed its full support of the action. (6/1/0) F2. Superintendent's Evaluation Mr. Robinson stated that during the course of the summer, the Board prepared its evaluation of the Superintendent of Schools' first year, and he said he wanted to share with the public, the Board, and the Superintendent, the letter that goes with her evaluation: Re:
Annual Performance Evaluation Dear Superintendent Ouellette: The Manchester Board of Education has completed its evaluation of your performance as Superintendent for the period ending June 30, 2005. Board members have rated your performance on an evaluation sheet by indicating a numerical score on a scale of zero (o), for inadequate basis for judgment, to five (5), for outstanding performance in each of the categories describing your duties, responsibilities, and performance objectives. Board Members' individual ratings of your performance were averaged and incorporated into the composite evaluation, which is attached hereto. Also enclosed are the written comments from Board Members. It is my pleasure to inform you that the Manchester Board of Education has determined that your overall performance rating for this period is 4.32, which exceeds the "very effective" rating and approaches the highest possible rating of "outstanding" or clearly and concisely meets highest performance standards, exceptional performance. In addition to this performance rating, the Manchester Board of Education has determined that you have earned a raise in your base salary equal to 3.25% of your current base salary, effective July 1, 2005. On behalf of the Manchester Board of Education, congratulations on your achievement. During your first months as Superintendent, you have risen to the many challenges facing our district with integrity, efficiency, and admirable tenacity. We are confident that your methodical and disciplined approach to improving student achievement will continue to ensure that all of our students in the district will succeed. The Manchester Board of Education applauds your dedication to the Manchester Public Schools and looks forward to continuing our work together in the years to come. Very truly yours,
G. NEW BUSINESS G1.
Board of Education Budget Workshop Schedule Thursday,
January 19, 2006 (snow date - Tuesday, January 24, 2006) The Superintendent
mentioned that the fourth date has been added, if it is needed, and
that Mr. Robinson stated that this item would come back as Old Business at the next meeting. H. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Edwards reported that the Building & Sites Committee met on August 31, 2005 and discussed the following topics: the site plan and traffic flow for the MHS renovation; property acquisition for the Bennet renovation; a report on the facilities was given; CREC money; air conditioning in future renovations; swing space; and Bailey Auditorium. I. COMMUNICATIONS - None J. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1) Tom Stringfellow, 183 Hillstown Road, Manchester, CT. Mr. Stringfellow mentioned that he supports Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the Consent Calendar, and that he supports the NCLB lawsuit. He mentioned an article from Education Digest on English as a second language, and recommended a book called Surviving College. He congratulated the Teacher of the Year, and hoped to see a person of color be selected as the Teacher of the Year in the near future. K. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Mrs. O'Neill asked for an update on Manchester students that attend MRA and the afternoon program at the Bentley Alternative Education program, and whether or not they stay enrolled and finish school. Superintendent Ouellette asked Ms. England to provide that information at a future meeting. MOTION: Rizzo/Golas s.v. The Board of Education moved to adjourn -10:12 p.m. Let the record reflect that there were technical difficulties with the audio at this meeting. Respectfully submitted, Margaret
Hackett, Secretary |
|