|
MANCHESTER
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006 |
|
|
M
I N U T E S
|
|
|
7:30
p.m.
Lincoln Center |
|
|
A. OPENING PRESENT:
Crockett, Edwards, Hackett, Marcano, Pohl, Rizzo, A.2.
Pledge of Allegiance Dr. Ouellette referred to the letter of resignation received by Board Chair Ms. Hackett, from Mr. John Rowe at the November 13th Board of Education Meeting. The Board was required to formally accept the resignation. Nominations were on the floor and a motion was made by Mr. Pohl. MOTION:
Pohl/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education accepted the letter
of resignation submitted by Mr. John Rowe. 8/0/0. Mr. Pohl said he was honored to nominate Geoffrey R. Luxenberg to fill the vacancy. Mr. Luxenberg had a distinctive academic record; an energetic community service background, and had achieved substantial political accomplishments. He was awarded a B.A. in Political Science from North Carolina State University, during which time he was inducted into six honor societies, including Phi Beta Kappa; on the Dean's list every semester and graduated Summa Cum Laude. Geoffrey is currently a student at the University Of Connecticut School Of Law. He served as Legislative Aide to House Chairman of the General Assembly's Education Committee, State Representative Andy Fleischman, as well as serving as the Clerk of the General Assembly's Education Committee in the last Legislative Session. These experiences had given Geoffrey valuable knowledge; understanding of the current trends of education in the State; knowledge and understanding that would, no doubt, benefit this Board and the people of Manchester. Geoffrey had shown an interest in serving on the Board for some time; visited schools and met with school principals and other Central Office Administration to discuss issues facing Manchester Public Schools. This had all taken place before Geoffrey had any inkling that there would be a vacancy on the Board. He would bring positive energy; new ideas and an eagerness to play a part. He was a member of the Manchester Democratic Town Committee: credited with revitalizing the Manchester Young Democrats, where he was serving as President and had volunteered for countless campaigns for local, state and national candidates. On a personal note, Mr. Pohl had never been more impressed with a person as young as Geoffrey Luxenberg. At age twenty-four Geoffrey was a testament that the next generation was ready to step up and do their part to help solve today's community problems. It was with great admiration and respect that Mr. Pohl nominated his friend, Geoffrey R. Luxenberg to fill the vacancy on the Manchester Board of Education. Mr. Stafford seconded the nomination. He thought Mr. Luxenberg was a very upstanding young man and he looked forward to working with him on the Board. There being no further nominations Dr. Ouellette declared the nominations closed. MOTION: Pohl/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved Mr. Luxenberg's nomination to the Board for the term November 2006 through November 2007. 8/0/0. Mr. Luxenberg took his seat on the Board accompanied by a round of applause. Dr. Ouellette called upon the Town Clerk to administer the oath of office and Mr. Geoffrey R. Luxenberg was officially sworn in. Dr. Ouellette invited Mr. Luxenberg to address the Board and the public. Mr. Luxenberg thanked Board members and his family and friends who were in the audience; coming to lend their support. He was thrilled and excited at the opportunity to join this illustrious Board and looked forward to what could be accomplished in the ensuing year. Ms. Hackett personally welcomed Mr. Luxenberg, whom she knew only briefly. From what she had heard, however, he had already accomplished volumes: had lots of enthusiasm, energy and a good base of experience upon which to draw. These traits would make him a very effective Board member.
Mr. Stafford said it was his honor to nominate Ms. Margaret Hackett. Over the past year Ms. Hackett had led the Board through many matters, i.e., building construction, renovation; shifting for swing space; curriculum and policy changes; other extraneous issues; faced many challenges, throughout all of which she had shown steadfast leadership, willingness to compromise and ability to move issues through to completion. Mr. Stafford had known Ms. Hackett for many years, through PTA and various other bodies and considered her to be knowledgeable, honorable and a competent leader. Upon hearing no further nominations Dr. Ouellette declared nominations closed. MOTION: Stafford/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the nomination of Ms. Hackett as Board Chairperson for the term of November 2006 though November 2007. 8/0/0. Ms. Hackett in the Chair. Ms. Hackett asked for nominations for the position of Board Secretary. Mr. Edwards nominated Mr. Michael Rizzo for the position of Board Secretary, with whom he had had the pleasure of serving for five years. He believed Mr. Rizzo had become a mentor, not only for him, but also for every member of the Board. He exemplified a commitment to education: basic fairness and the students of Manchester. Mr. Edwards was honored to make the nomination and thanked the members of the Board of Education for permitting Mr. Rizzo to be Secretary last year. He hoped his nomination would carry in this coming year. There being no further nominations Ms. Hackett declared nominations closed. MOTION: Edwards/Crockett s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the nomination of Mr. Michael Rizzo as Board Secretary for the term November 2006 through November 2007. 8/0/0. A.5 Reaffirmation
of Board of Education By Laws & Policies Mr. Rizzo made a motion to reaffirm the current Bylaws, Policy 9000. MOTION: Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Manchester Board of Education reaffirmed the current By-Laws, Policy 9000. 9/0/0. A.6.Minutes
of November 13, 2006 MOTION: Rizzo/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the Minutes of November 13, 2006, as printed. 8/0/0. B. Superintendent's
Report - Part I Three 5th grade students came to the microphone and charmed the Board and the public when they read aloud précis` of stories they had been reading. Dr. Ouellette assisted the students by holding up the posters that illustrated their stories. Among the topics chosen by the children were: Mexican Americans; Corn, Three Sisters and Stone Fox, and Honey Bees. Ms. Hackett thanked Mr. Wolf and the wonderful students for coming to read their stories and expressed the utmost admiration for the young students who were so poised in front of the camera. C. Public
Comments Mrs. Dot Brindamour, 6 Morse Road emphasized very strongly that reading should not only be for educational purposes, but for entertainment too; teachers had a duty to make it entertaining in order to encourage the children to read more. Ms. Brindamour's second concern was about the excessive homework children were being given over summer vacations and the school year. She felt this was causing students additional and unnecessary stress. Stress was already a huge problem in the workplace and should not be forced on our children. She was of the view that this issue should be discussed with educators, parents and children and the Board needed to seriously check into it. Ms. Eileen Sweeney, 86 Hawthorne Street, agreed with the comments of the two speakers. As children progressed through the grades there was non-existent time for reading. It should be remembered that reading was where one learned vocabulary and writing skills. Her children were voracious readers but there appeared to be not enough time for this any more. Ms. Sweeney said the question of excessive homework had become a national debate and she quoted "Excessive out of classroom home assignments are counter-productive and discriminatory. From elementary to secondary level, young people and adolescents were leading sedentary lives: over six hours in classrooms, topped off by several more hours sitting at a computer in their homes on week nights; weekends, school holidays, etc. This regimen interrupted family life and limited opportunities for spontaneous cross generational conversations and meals together." Another aspect of the problem was that not all children enjoyed similar financial advantages. Mr. Milt Perlman, 3 Sanford Road, congratulated Mr. Luxenberg, Ms. Hackett and Mr. Rizzo on their respective appointment and reappointments to the Manchester Board of Education. Mr. Perlman commented on a recent discussion by the Board of Directors on the appropriation of $50,000 for schools. According to his understanding, there was a State law that said money could be appropriated to the school Board and they could then spend it for any purpose. Frankly, he thought it was sad to think that the same hands controlled both Boards and the $50,000 would not be granted unless it was assured that the money was going to where it was supposed to be going. Mr. Perlman wanted to know what percentage of the money was going to be used for parental activities. He had not heard this mentioned. If one talked about $1.4m for Title I, that was $14,000 that should be used to get parents involved. Mr. Perlman agreed with the previous speakers on the subject of excessive homework. Children were under pressure to obtain higher and higher grades to get them into college, creating the problem of where to get the money to pay for all of it. Mr. Perlman stressed, as he had done at previous meetings that history had shown that there were many avenues open to young people to pursue careers, which did not require a college education but called for other marketable skills. Not everyone was born to go to college. Mr. Stringfellow,
183 Hillstown Road, referenced the following booklets, magazines, and
other snippets: Mr. Stringfellow concluded by extending his congratulations to Mr. Luxenberg. Ms. Hackett commented that the Board meeting had started a little late. The Board had been discussing a time-sensitive matter and unfortunately this can some times happen and was unforeseeable. She apologized for any inconvenience caused by the delay and thanked the public for their patience. D. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Mr. Mark Moeremans gave a report on past and future events at Manchester High School. Construction:
Going very well, at a very fast pace. The new wing has been enclosed
and can be heated, ensuring it could be used throughout the winter. November
2-4 "Odd Couple" - performed by Drama Club - 2 sell-out houses
and 2 three quarters sold out: Mr. Pohl asked if the Round Table had any public events planned for the holidays and was told they had several concerts coming up. They were performing on November 13th and the Holiday Concert was to be held on December 20th. He would bring further information to the December 18th Board Meeting. Ms. Hackett asked to be given the dates for all upcoming events. E. CONSENT CALENDAR Dr. Ouellette sought approval for the ten items on the Consent Calendar: E.1. Personnel
Action E.2. Resolution
for Signature for HOT (Higher Thinking Order) Schools' Participation
FY 2006/07 E.3. Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $1,000 E.4. Permission
to Apply for Education Special Projects - $70,000
E.6. Appropriation
for Education for Special Projects - $17,027 E.7. Extended
Field Trip Request - Manchester High School E.8. Approval
of Board of Education Meeting Schedule for 2006/07 E.9. Approval of Certification Statement for Healthy Food and Beverages in Schools. Section 2 of Public Act 06-63, An Act Concerning Healthy Food and Beverages in Schools, directs the Connecticut State Department of Education to develop and publish nutrition standards for food items offered for sale to students at schools. Such standards shall not apply to food sold as part of the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. The Act further provides funding to National School Lunch Program participants that annually certifies compliance with these nutrition standards Recommendation: Pursuant to Section 3 of Public Act 06-63, the Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Manchester Board of Education certifies that all food items offered for sale to students in the school(s) under the Manchester Public Schools' jurisdiction, and not exempted from the nutrition standards published by the Connecticut State Department of Education on August 1, 2006, will not meet said standards. E.10 Budget Transfers In accordance with Board of Education Policy #3160: details had already been provided in the Board agenda package. Mr. Rizzo moved adoption of the Consent Calendar. Ms. Hackett informed Mr. Luxenberg that with regard to Item E.8 "Revised Board of Education Meeting Schedule for 2006/07, it had been her intention to send the schedule out to him and advised him to use the one presented to the Board that evening as it was current and reflected all the necessary changes. MOTION: Rizzo/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education adopted the Consent Calendar, as outlined by Dr. Ouellette. 9/0/0. F. OLD BUSINESS F.1. Manchester
High School Mission Ms. Hackett called for a motion. MOTION: Pohl/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the adoption of the Manchester High School Mission Statement, as presented by Mr. Sierakowski. 9/0/0. G. NEW BUSINESS Dr. Ouellette announced that Ms. Brooks and Dr. Gejda would present a new Educational Technology Policy/Guidelines #3511 to the Board and public. Ms. Brooks stated that the Educational Technology Policy/Guidelines #5131 had been presented at the October 5, 2006 meeting of the Policy Committee. She recapped that during the Budget Meetings last year there had been discussion that the Board would like to have a policy to govern the amount of money in the budget each year for technology, similar to the #3510 policy governing the amount of money budgeted each year for maintenance and building projects. The educational technology policy was in the Board package and showed that the Personnel & Finance Committee would review the technology plan presented to them each year in cooperation with the Superintendent, Assistant to the Superintendent for Finance, and the Educational Technology Supervisor. The amount of money budgeted would be at least 5% of every budget and set aside for educational technology purchases during the Fiscal Year. The policy mirrored Policy #3510, and the 5% budgeted for technology was the minimum that would be budgeted each year. Dr. Gejda was there to take questions. Mr. Edwards thought it was great to hear they would be setting aside a certain percentage of our budget. He was curious to know what current expenditures were, and what percentage did they represent. He wanted to get a sense of whether we were 'reaching' with this policy or were merely codifying something already being done. Ms. Brooks said they had budgeted $500,000 during the last budget year for educational technology expenditure to cover hardware, software, software licenses, etc. The 5% of this year's budget would be approximately $410,000. They had thrown out a percentage, when they really would like to have seen $800,000 a year. The goal was to have at least a guideline to propose a minimum they must come up with in the budget every year. We were looking at a 3-year technology plan; measuring that against a budget request for $500,000 or $550,000 representing what the technology plan was, but not go beyond 5%. Mr. Edwards was aware of the long-term lease for certain types of expenditure and queried if that would be covered under this policy. Ms. Brooks informed him that they were talking about putting items for students in the schools, and not looking at the type of technology needed for Administrative Personnel, office personnel or other businesses. Mr. Edwards pursued the question "Then, we would not be allocating any of our underlying infrastructure costs?" Ms. Brooks told him we would not. Ms. Hackett
thanked Ms. Brooks and Dr. Gejda for drafting the document: it was an
excellent start and had been talked about as early as last budget season.
At times the Board was faced with competing interests and difficult
decision-making: this document would ensure that we would not continue
to try to save budget dollars on this particular line item. G.2.
BULLYING POLICY/GUIDELINES #5131.1 Revision Ms. Tait reported that Items 1-9 in the current Policy would remain the same. One of the changes/additions was a permissive clause that we may address bullying that occurred outside school grounds: it allowed the Administrator to use some discretion about community issues that occurred. The definition of 'bullying' remained the same because it was a legal definition and gave fair notice that discipline could be anything up to, and including, expulsion, arising from a particular happening. Another additional element had been added, i.e., once an incident had been investigated, even if the incident did not rise to the level of the legal definition of bullying, they could still discipline the perpetrator in a manner that was contained in the Discipline Policy. The other items were similar to what was in the current Administration Guidelines: but laid out more clearly and formally, with the exception that they also included the permissive language again about off campus conduct. Included was a sample of the notice that would be in each reprinted Handbook. For the benefit of the Board, Dr. Ouellette requested Ms. Tait to tell them about the notification process to parents and students. Ms. Tait stated that they were required, under the legislation, to notify parents of both victim and perpetrator. They did not notify the victim or parents of the disciplinary action taken because that would violate confidentiality legislation. They did inform them that disciplinary action had been taken. Parents of the alleged perpetrator received due notice of the incident and of the discipline that would follow. Ms. Hackett asked if the revisions were shown in italics and was told that was not the case as it was a brand new expanded document. G.3. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Brooks and Mr. Aldi, Food Service Coordinator, were present to review "Healthy Beverages in Schools Policy/Guidelines #5143. Ms. Brooks stated that, under the Consent Calendar, they had already identified a portion of the Public Act #06-63, an Act concerning healthy beverages in schools. The Act was signed into law on May 19th, effective July 1; applying only to the school's sale of beverages and food sold to students. The Board needed to take action on three sections of the law, i.e., Section 1 - on what the policy had been written. Compliance was required, and the Board had to define the type of beverages sold to students in public schools, either during the school day, or after school. Only five categories of beverages may be sold to students. Sports drinks and soda had been added. The guidelines stated that students will be allowed to purchase the following beverages: Milk, flavored and unflavored; nondairy milk, e.g., soy or rice; 100% fruit or vegetable or combination; water and juice beverages with no added sugars, sweeteners/artificial sweeteners; water (plain or flavored) with no added sugars, sweeteners, artificial sweeteners or caffeine. The Policy stated that the Board would allow the sale of other beverages during events, if all three conditions were met, i.e., sale was in connection with an event occurring after the end of the regular school day or on the weekend; sale is at the location of the event; and the beverages not sold from a vending machine or school store. An allowable event was an occurrence that involved more than just a regularly scheduled practice, meeting or extracurricular activity. Soccer practices, play rehearsals and debate team meetings were not considered allowable events. Examples of allowable events were: school dance; family night; PTA/PTO event; school concert; theatrical productions; sports events and games, e.g., basketball, football, soccer and school fairs. Dr. Ouellette asked Ms. Brooks to explain why this was a time-sensitive policy and the reasoning behind it. Ms. Brooks said the State was initially going to permit the Board to take action on this at any time during the year. However, a letter had been received within the last two weeks saying that insufficient schools had complied and the deadline was being brought forward to December 1st. Ms. Brooks recommended that the Board approve the Policy that evening. Mr. Rizzo wanted to know if this policy would prohibit students from bringing sports drinks to practice. Ms. Brooks responded that it was only food and beverages sold to students. It was allowable for a coach to bring a sports drink and give it to the team: any sale of food or drinks must be within the policy criteria. Ms. Hackett stated that as Ms. Brooks had asked for a vote at the meeting to approve the Policy, a motion was called for to move the said item to a new part of the meeting, which would be called "Old Business-Part II". "New Business" would subsequently be re-titled H, with an automatic re-numbering of the remaining agenda items. MOTION: Rizzo/Edwards s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved moving Item G.3 to H1 "Old Business-Part II". 9/0/0. Ms. Hackett confirmed that Items 1 and 2 under G. "New Business", i.e., Educational Technology Policy/Guidelines #3511 and Bullying Policy/Guidelines #5131. Revision, would come back to the December 18 meeting under "Old Business".
Ms. Hackett called for a motion. Mr. Rizzo made a motion that the Healthy Beverages in Schools Policy/Guidelines #3541 be adopted. Mr. Edwards asked what date the Board had been notified of the new deadline. Ms. Brooks informed him that she had been notified about two weeks prior. The law had been in effect since July 1. Mr. Luxenberg commented, for the benefit of the public, that this legislation was introduced to address a major concern of the Town of Manchester who was trying to solve the childhood obesity which was resulting in increased healthcare; social and health problems. The State had acted in good faith in passing this legislation, and the Board had acted in good faith in approving it. In terms of the notice, the Bill had received extensive public attention and most of the community had been aware of it. It was no surprise to him that the Board had given their approval. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Luxenberg's comments were well taken. His concern, however, was that in moving New Business to Old Business the public would not be given the opportunity to comment on the policy. Mr. Edwards was of the belief that the Board was already complying with the measures recommended in the policy. Ms. Brooks
pointed out that had the Board been holding two meetings in December
she would not have viewed the matter so urgently; they were now MOTION: Rizzo/Stafford s.v. The Manchester Board of Education approved the adoption of the Healthy Beverages in Schools Policy/Guidelines #3541. 9/0/0. I. COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Hackett stated that at the November 22nd Board meeting, Dr. Ouellette had forwarded to Board members an email offered by General Manager Scott Hanley. The email indicated that on the previous evening the Board of Directors had passed a Resolution organizing a committee to design a Textbook Loan Program for Manchester students in Private Schools, within the confines of applicable State Law. The Board of Directors wanted to form a committee and requested that two members from the Board of Education serve on the committee, offering a deadline for the Committee's work to be concluded by noon on January 9th, 2007. Ms. Hackett desired to share with the Board, and the public, that while viewing that meeting she had observed that the full extent of the information that the Board of Education had been working on had not conveyed at the meeting. This was a matter of concern for her, as she had known about the situation, personally, since June, and had worked on it with a member of the Board of Directors. A personal meeting with Mr. Shanley, initiated by Ms. Hackett personally had taken place to discuss the issue. Also present at that meeting were the Board of Education Central Office Administrators. It appeared that the request the Board of Directors thought they had sent to this Board back in June was to appropriate $50,000 for textbooks to parochial schools in Manchester. That appropriation never took place because of a breakdown in communications on the part of the Town. In addition, the Board of Education was confident that this did not fall within their bailiwick. After numerous conversations between the Board of Directors and the Town, on October 25th they discussed what action could be taken to stay within the letter of the law. Nothing further had been heard about the matter until Ms. Hackett viewed the discussion taking place at the Board of Director's meeting on November 21 last. Ms. Hackett said in order to move forward, the Board of Education would continue to analyze the issue and determine what they legally could do. Work had not been finished so it would be premature to abandon what had already been done up to this point. They would need to discuss what the parameters were if the Board decided to move in that direction; analyze the need for, and design of, a program to benefit everyone that would have minimal impact on Board of Education's operations. Ms. Hackett concluded by advising Board members that it was in their best interests to continue working on the process while keeping the Board of Directors informed. At some point the Board would be in a position to advise the schools of what they could/could not do within the limitations of State law. Ms. Hackett planned to contact the General Manager the following day to give him her response to his communication. J. COMMITTEE REPORTS J.1. Curriculum
and Instruction Committee Review of the Adequate Yearly Progress, subgroup reference was particularly highlighted. Discussion revealed the district's state as a district in need of improvement due to several subgroups not making target areas in reading and math. Mr. Sierakowski reviewed the graduation profile and explained changes initiated at the high school which would change students' perspective and encourage them to take the test. Strategies were suggested to change students' success on the test. Statistics from the High School were shared highlighting monies spent to help more students excel in AP courses. The Committee
reviewed Manchester High School's Mission Statement of mastering high
standards, as presented by Mr. Sierakowski, and discussions had taken
place concerning the new revisions. There was some discussion on: the equity Mission Statement and reviewed questionnaire on how to teach differently; the template that was being worked on re tracking student progress plus several other new forms. The next meeting of the Curriculum & Instruction Committee was scheduled for December 11, 2006. J.1. Policy
Committee October 5th: the Committee talked about the enrollment policy #5118: changes to Guidelines, Section III.F. and III.G. The Bullying Policy #5131.1 was discussed, and also the Board of Education Bylaws Policy #9000 and changes were drafted. November 16th: the Committee discussed the Educational Technology Policy Guidelines #3511; Healthy Beverages in Schools Policy/Guidelines #5143 and Bullying Policy/Guidelines #5131.1. Further discussion on Board of Education By Laws #9000 revision. Discussion about future meetings. J.2. Personnel
& Finance Committee K. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Nino Pagani, commented that meals were being served in Vernon, South Windsor for half-day school and wanted to know why Manchester did not also do this. Mr. Pagani revisited the subject of food wastage. Children were being forced to take so many different items as they walked through the line for meals, but who knew what they actually finished up eating/not eating. He believed when they left the cafeteria they discarded half the food. Mr. Stringfellow expressed his support for agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9; also the Manchester High School Mission Statement. Regarding the Bullying Policy, he passed on some information about an article that had appeared in the Boston Globe, Fall 2005/2006 dealt with this issue, and talked about teaching tolerance in different ways. He quoted the State as saying that Discipline Begins in the Home and talked about Parental Responsibilities and what Guardianship should be, etc. Parent
& Child Magazine, November issue dealt with the subject of reading,
stress and homework. The article talked about sleep hygiene and other
activities and Time Management. Schools could not do it all - there
had got to be give and take. Parents needed to step up, whether or not
they agreed with school policy. l. ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDAS Ms. Hackett called for a Motion to adjourn. MOTION: Edwards/Rizzo s.v. The Manchester Board of Education adjourned at 9:30pm. 9/0/0. Respectfully submitted, Michael
Rizzo, Secretary |