PRESENT: T. Becker, S. Cassano, S. Edwards, D. Golas, J. Howroyd, J. Nye,
L. O'Neill, M. Rizzo, T. Robinson, L. Spadaccini, T. Thresher, K. Zingler,

ALSO PRESENT: P. Brett, P. Brooks, J. Libby, A.M. Mistretta, K. Ouellette,
S. Werbner,

BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: M. Hackett, J. Huyler, S. Lok

AGENDA:

Presentation of educational issues affecting Manchester schools.

Mayor Cassano opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. He welcomed everyone to the combined meeting of the Board of Directors and Board of Education.

Mayor Cassano led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mayor Cassano explained that a meeting of the subcommittees of the two Boards was previously scheduled to deal with the educational issues, particularly since the passage of the high school referendum. He explained the goal of the committee was to get the elementary school process started, to get the addition approved on the high school, and to settle the middle school issue. However, since there will be a presentation given at this meeting that could have a dramatic impact on the elementary and middle schools and their configuration, the meeting was changed to include all Board members from the Board of Directors and Board of Education.

Mayor Cassano congratulated Kathy Ouellette as the new Superintendent of Schools. He also thanked Anne Marie Mistretta for her excellent work during her interim Superintendent role.

Mr. Robinson welcomed Superintendent Ouellette. He also introduced the new Business Manager for the Board of Education, Patricia Brooks. He noted that David Golas, a returning Board of Education member, who was sworn in on Tuesday, November 16, 2004. He welcomed Mr. Golas back to the Board. He also thanked Dr. Mistretta for helping achieve some significant milestones in Manchester.

Mr. Werbner also offered the administration's thanks to Dr. Mistretta, stating that it has been a pleasure to work with her. He stated that several weeks ago, discussions were started between the administrations regarding some of the issues that would be discussed at this meeting. They felt there were a number of issues affecting the entire district which has an impact on the Head Start program, the elementary school program and the middle school program. They felt it important for everyone to be able to hear this type of comprehensive report because any decision made on one element impacts another element. The impacts of any decision are significant and can occur over a number of years.

Dr. Mistretta stated they are at a crossroads for construction and instruction. Before a decision is made about the middle school, she feels there is a lot of information the Boards need to know which will impact their decision. She feels there is no one absolute correct decision, but that it should be a decision the Boards are comfortable with.

Dr. Mistretta stated there are three things that will affect decision making around construction: racial balance, least restrictive environment, and NCLB: Adequate Yearly Progress. Racial balance is something Manchester has had to deal with several times in the last decade. Regarding No Child Left Behind, and Adequate Yearly Progress, Manchester is at the point of feeling this law as there is a school that has not met Adequate Yearly Progress. She commented that least restrictive environment is a very pressing issue that deals with Special Education, the federal law and case law that has been passed within the last several years.

Dr. Mistretta spoke about the Pre-School Center Construction. They are looking to educate preschool students in a centralized location, with a family center. This idea is good for kids, the quality of programming, and starts families and schools off with good relationships. Once preschool students are removed from the schools, there are some racial imbalance problems. There are four sites that are Head Start sites (Bentley, Bowers, Highland Park, Verplanck), and three schools that are preschool sites (Keeney, Buckley, Robertson), and they would like to take all of the programs and put them into a center. This creates a situation where Buckley will be out of racial balance immediately, and Highland Park will have impending racial imbalance. These two schools are persistently in danger of racial imbalance. The site that is being considered is the Bentley site, which currently houses Alternative Education and Head Start. The Buildings and Grounds Department for the Board of Education is also located at Bentley, which would have to be located elsewhere. There are plans to put the Alternative School into the high school in the K-wing, once the addition is built. She stated that a timeline needs to be constructed for each change.

A very immediate concern is the Least Restrictive Environment. Dr. Mistretta explained that Public Law 94-142, Special Education Federal Legislation, has been in effect for over three decades. There is also a class action suit which has been in effect for a decade called PJ et. al. vs. State of Connecticut. There was a decision made in May 2002, and Manchester knew that a great deal more inclusion needed to be incorporated into the district. Previously, the entire administration of the Special Education Department was reorganized in order to tackle the mandates of this law. What this case states is that all students have the right to be educated at their home school. This will immediately affect the Buckley Multiple Abilities Program, students who are disabled and have occupational and physical therapy, a lot of equipment and paraprofessionals. Another program that will be affected is the Keeney STEP Program (Sequential Transitional Education Program), which is mostly students with behavioral difficulties. All of the students have to go back to their home schools. In order for this to occur, every school needs time out areas, changing table and Hoyer lift, an elevator that accommodates a wheelchair with a leg extended plus one helper, one exterior door with a ramp/electric door opener, classrooms and labs that have at least one work station that is wheelchair accessible, and adequate space for special education equipment. She asked that given these needs, which elementary schools should be slated for the next renovation; and, how can the district meet these needs without adequate space. She stated that several schools are not ready to accept these students from Buckley as they will not be able to get around. They reviewed the final draft of the Capital Improvement Plan and a lot of these needs were folded into that plan. She noted that Manchester has the highest identified black/African American students with special education learning needs in the State. There will be some schools that will be going out of racial balance pretty quickly such as Buckley in one or two years. She presented projections of students of color to the 2009-2010 school year, and stated that the same formula was used when Washington School was out of balance, which proved to be accurate. These projections include taking preschool out and using a K-5 average. She noted that if preschoolers were left in the school, there still would be some of the same dilemmas. No school may be 25 percent above or below the K-5 average or it is considered out of racial balance. Regarding middle schools, with no migration, Bennet will be at 51.41% students of color, while Illing will be at 37.25%. No racial balance will mandated by the State of Connecticut at the middle school level because of the way the formula is applied.

Dr. Mistretta presented the economically disadvantaged figures broken down by Bennet feeder schools and Illing feeder schools. Bennet currently is at 44.2% and Illing at 30.8%. Research states that the single most important factor that impacts student learning is poverty.

Dr. Mistretta then spoke about No Child Left Behind and Adequate Yearly Progress. With NCLB, there are specific targets that students and subgroups are supposed to meet. If they do not meet these targets, then they are cited for lack of adequate yearly progress. She commented that schools with more diversity have a bigger challenge because of the diversity of learning styles of students. She stated there is a big disparity between the diversity at Bennet and Illing. Additionally, if there are 40 students or more in a subgroup, their performance is examined as a group. The subgroups that are examined are Economically Disadvantaged, Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, English Language Learners, and Students with Disabilities. Bennet made a lack of adequate yearly progress this year for economically disadvantaged students. Up to 20% of Title I funds may be spent on transportation, at parents' request, when a Title I school does not meet adequate yearly progress. Therefore, parents of Bennet students may request transportation to Illing. This will leave less funding for programming.

Dr. Mistretta presented the CMT Performance five score bands: advanced, goal, proficient, basic, and below basic. The target is at proficiency or above. She noted that Bennet does quite well as a school in all three test, with writing at outstanding. However, after NCLB is applied, the numbers change. This is because the State removes any student who was not present for an entire testing year, and applies a confidence interval, which is a statistical formula to normalize groups across the State. Due to these changing numbers, Bennet failed to meet the AYP. One target that was missed was for Black students in Math. However, due to Safe Harbor, they did meet AYP because they made significant process from the prior year. Secondly, Hispanic students did not make AYP in Math, but were not cited because it was the first year for this subgroup. Lastly, Economically Disadvantaged did not meet AYP in Math for the second year, and was cited for this. She stated they are very proud of the reading scores, which speak loudly for the district reading programs and the commitment of the Board to them. She explained that they try to examine cohort groups in Manchester. They do not apply the confidence interval. She explained that the results show how the programs are doing, and noted that Bennet does well. They also reviewed how Bennet students are performing once they get to the high school using CAPT scores. The results show that Bennet students do well on the CAPT. The reason they are presenting this data, is that the district would prefer that parents to not move students out of Bennet and into Illing, as this forces the district to pay for transportation rather than provide funds for programs.

In summary, some Manchester elementary schools will likely be out of racial balance within this decade. Bennet and Illing middle schools have severely disparate challenges to teaching, learning, and assessment, resulting in different school cultures. Manchester has been cited for lack of compliance with Least Restrictive Environment, and therefore, must return students with disabilities to their neighborhood schools. This primarily affects elementary schools. In addition, Manchester elementary schools are out of space.

Dr. Mistretta presented six options for possible solutions: 1) To maintain the current neighborhood schools and grade level configuration, making minor adjustments using bordering streets as schools move out of balance. She noted that this option treats the symptoms, but doesn't solve the problem. As more schools become imbalanced, it becomes more complex and expensive. It also does not solve space problems for special education inclusion. 2) When imbalances are imminent, design magnet schools. This option would be expensive to the Board of Education and the taxpayer. 3) Redistrict the elementary schools for racial balance. This makes Manchester adherent to CT General Statutes at the elementary level. It possibly would solve the racial imbalance problem at the middle school, but does not necessarily balance inequities in economic need. 4) Opt for "Controlled Choice" or "Attendance Zones". This racially balances, but creates a "patch-work quilt" with transportation. 5) Redistrict the middle schools. This is not mandated, and would permit students to transfer under AYP. Lines could be redrawn if a new building is built. 6) Redistrict the elementary schools for racial balance, and reconfigure grade level housing at schools. Manchester would adhere to CT General Statutes at the elementary level using this option. Depending on what configuration of grade levels the Board selects, it might also solve some other problems. The "tests" for grade level configuration include: Is the design instructionally effective for our students? Does it solve space needs for the return of special education students? Does it solve the imbalances that challenge the middle schools? She feels that if a reconfiguration of grades does not do these things, then the Board should not consider it. After considering Option 6, they developed eleven questions: 1) What is the most effective grade level configuration for educating Manchester's youth? 2) What are the space needs of the school K through 8? 3) What is the cost of redistricting the elementary schools regarding FTEs and transportation? 4) What impact does redistricting elementary schools have on the middle schools? 5) What are the costs associated with reconfigured neighborhood schools and/or middle school grade levels with regard to FTE, transportation and facility needs? 6) What will it cost the district to return the special education students to their neighborhood schools regarding FTE, transportation, and facility construction? 7) When programs move out of Buckley, who can move in? There is new housing appearing behind Shady Glen. Can those students fit into landlocked Highland? If those students are relocated to Buckley, will it exacerbate the racial imbalance? What is the impact of other areas under development? 8) From which fund will facilities costs come from (Board of Education Reserve Account, Capital Improvement Plan, 3510, or Bond)? 9) How does this affect the sequence of elementary school renovations? 10) Should the BOE hire consulting forms to conduct these studies? 11) What is the impact on the Board budget to maintain Bennet Middle School campus maintenance should the bond issue be delayed beyond spring 2005? Dr. Mistretta reminded everyone of the most effective organization for instruction: uniformity and equity in programming; equitable deployment of resources; equity in student mobility, racial balance, and economic need level; and, excellent, dedicated staff, focused on the Mission of the Manchester Public Schools. She also shared some CAPT Student Subgroup Performance Data. It shows that between 2001 and 2004, Manchester has grown substantially in some situations with respect to the percent of students at or above proficiency.

Tom Robinson opened the discussion for questions regarding the presentation. He stated that this was a very complete articulation of issues, including new ones such as NCLB. He commented that the questions may formulate the basis for the next steps as the issues are explored.

Mr. Becker asked if the school district's maximum dollar exposure was calculated, regarding No Child Left Behind Bennet students that would be eligible to seek relocation to Illing.

Dr. Mistretta stated that up to 20 percent of the Title 1 funds of $1.2M may be spent on transportation. They have to offer transportation to any Bennet student who wants to transfer to Illing. They are in the process of identifying space available at Illing.

Dr. Brett stated they have been meeting to develop a timeline for addressing the movement to Illing if parents request. They are meeting again to discuss space, class size and personnel, which will provide a better idea of budget implications. They have identified January 24 as the date that students could actually move to Bennet, which is the first day of second semester. A letter will be sent out to parents and be posted on the website. The letter should be returned by December 17, so that there will be adequate time to prepare students to transition from Bennet to Illing. However, she noted that many parents and students are happy to be at Bennet, and they don't anticipate a huge influx of students leaving Bennet to go to Illing. They must be prepared because it is the mandate.

Mr. Becker confirmed that there is a deadline for parents to request that their students change schools.

Dr. Brett stated they would meet throughout the next several days to determine the definite dates.

Mr. Becker noted that the impact on the school budget halfway through the school year is an unknown. He asked if any funding sources have been identified.

Dr. Mistretta that it would all be covered with Title I funds. She also noted that they are confined in their actions by the timeline the State and Federal Government set.

Mr. Becker confirmed that if there were no surplus funds to cover transportation, it is safe to say that programs will have to be cut. He suggested it might be good information to have as to what will be cut before parents make their decision.

Dr. Mistretta stated that Dr. Tognalli has reviewed the Title I budget and what would have to happen if those funds were used for transportation for students to move from Bennet to Illing. The only thing that might confine moving a student would be a space issue.

Mr. Becker asked about the property behind Highland Park school, and the suitability for an additional wing if necessary.

Mr. Werbner stated that there are serious wetland issues associated with the Highland Park property, and in their best judgment, it would be extremely difficult to add onto the school there.

Ms. Ouellette stated that all letters will be distributed to all parents at Bennet Middle School; however, as they attempt to gain an understanding of how many available spaces there are at Illing, they will give priority to the economically disadvantaged students, since their Adequate Yearly progress was not met.

Mr. Edwards stated that there was another set of testing, and asked what would happen to any sanctions that may be in place if Bennet makes enough progress that it is no longer on the AYP list. Does the Board continue to be obligated to provide transportation if someone does transfer to Illing? Would the parent be allowed to leave their students at Illing, if they provide their own transportation?

Dr. Mistretta stated that the district does not want students moving back and forth between schools. She cautioned that if students are transferred, that they will be offered the opportunity to stay at Illing.

Ms. Ouellette stated that the intent of the law is to provide consistency within the schools. Should the CMT scores result favorably for Bennet Middle School, that school improvement plan will be current until another one could be put in place. Students that transfer to Illing will have the option to stay or to return to Bennet.

Mr. Edwards asked if Bennet came off the AYP list, would the Board still provide transportation if the student chose to stay at Illing. He feels this should be known as it may impact a parent's decision to enroll their students at Illing.

Dr. Brett stated this question came up at their committee meeting. They are investigating the answer according to the law. However, they discourage students from transferring back and forth as it is not in the best interest of the student.

Mrs. O'Neill clarified that Dr. Tognalli's report states that if a student's school of origin is no longer identified for improvement, the LEA is no longer obligated to provide transportation.

Mr. Werbner noted that Illing is also on the cusp of being cited. If current test scores show failure to make adequate yearly progress, these students could request to go to Bennet. Therefore, you would have students transferring to and from both schools which were cited. This shows some of the complexities of the legislation and how well thought out it was in terms of adoption.

Mr. Rizzo stated he sees two issues regarding least restrictive environment and moving special education students back to their home school. One is moving them back to the neighborhood school, and the other is inclusion with regular education students. He asked if Dr. Mistretta could speak to these issues.

Dr, Mistretta stated there are two aspects of inclusion. One is moving students from Keeney and Buckley to the home schools and having those students included. She noted they are working with the State Department of Education and the Special Education Resource Center to gain professional development for the teachers. She and Jen Tait did a great deal of work to map out a grid of who the students are, where they need to move to, what needs to happen to the facility, and who they need to take with them in terms of a paraprofessional or teacher. This grid shows that three more teachers will be required to make this happen should all those parents wish their students to return to their home school. There is also the issue of inclusion of students with mild learning disabilities into regular classrooms. Professional development has been done, as well as personnel structuring of paraprofessionals and facilitators. They are also working to blur the lines of special education and regular education teachers so that they can work together with students.

Mrs. Nye thanked Dr. Mistretta for the comprehensive presentation. She asked what the deadline is to have fully complied with PJ vs. the State legislation.

Dr. Mistretta stated the deadline is December 1, 2004.

Mrs. Nye asked what would happen since the physical changes could not be done by the deadline. She also asked if a letter would be sent to parents with a timeline for parents to respond regarding transferring students back to their home school.

Dr. Mistretta invited Anne Louise Fournier to join the discussion. She noted that since these are special education students, a lot more would have to be done than sending a letter.

Mrs. Fournier stated they do have a plan for informing parents of students that will be returning to their home schools, and have already started this process. In initiatives that have been started, for fifth grade students going into grade six, they would be attending their home school. They also reviewed the students who moved into the district, they tried very hard to put them into their home school and accommodate their needs within that school. Their plan is to meet individually with each of the buildings and go over student by student those who are eligible to go into their home school. They will outline exactly what these students need in terms of equipment and facilities. This will be done between December and January. They will then meet with the parents to review the facilities, the student's needs and how they can be met within their home schools. The plan becomes finalized at a PPT done annually. This will mean reallocating some of the Buckley and Keeney staff, support services and social work services. They have been meeting with the staff to prepare for this reallocation. Training has been done, and is ongoing.

Dr. Mistretta stated the reason they were cited was because the district was not aggressive enough in moving students back to their home schools. Approximately one-third of the school systems in Connecticut have been cited. She is not certain of the period of time that will be given as a grace period; however, she spoke to several other towns on how they handled the situation. Most of these other towns had already completed their renovations within the last ten years. She noted that some of the equipment additions will not fit into some schools, as some elevators are not large enough to fit a student with legs extended with an accompanying adult. The district will remain cited for students that they cannot accommodate at their home schools due to facilities until renovations are made. Although she does not know the timelines, sanctions that could be taken against the district may impact IDEA funds which could be withheld, and ECS monies could be affected as well.

Mrs. Fournier reported that the State met with the district last year, and an action plan was devised with them. The State approved all of the district's goals, and the district has met each goal. Even though they were met, the State then changed the goals making the district out of compliance.

Mr. Spadaccini stated while the Board of Directors will provide guidance and assistance with regard to grade configuration and racial balance, this does include issues of school construction. This is where the two Boards will be making policy decisions together. He understands how State mandates can affect space needs at each elementary school. He doesn't understand how the racial balance mandate affects the school construction plans. In each plan, he continues to see a racial balance challenge.

Dr. Brett agreed, and stated the Shef vs. O'Neil is the larger picture that Connecticut is facing.

Mr. Spadaccini stated that without Shef vs. O'Neil, there is the State statute that has the plus or minus 25 percent of the district average. He does not see how any construction plan could settle this long-term issue. He believes this will have to be settled in some other way than school construction.

Dr. Mistretta stated that it is possible for the Board to just redraw districting lines, and believes they will ultimately have to at the elementary level before the decade is out. By placing a middle school elsewhere, the lines could be drawn a certain way. She noted that the middle schools do not have to be racially balanced; however, the challenges of different middles schools has to be addressed.

Mr. Spadacinni commented that if this issue is addressed at the elementary school level, by virtue of those schools feeding into two middle schools, it would essentially get addressed at the middle school level as well.

Dr. Mistretta stated they were not sure of this answer, but believes the Board should review this. This will require software to run models through.

Mr. Spadacinni asked if he was correct in assuming, with respect to school construction, that the challenges the district faces are more the result of the special education mandates than they are with the issue of racial balance.

Dr. Mistretta stated yes, according to the law.

Mr. Spadacinni commented that parents should be informed if the feeder schools were to change impacting who could be going to Illing or Bennet prior to a decision being made. He asked to what degree the district has used the State Department of Education as a resource to help address the racial balance issue and the mandates, while improving academic achievement and closing the achievement gap.

Dr. Mistretta stated they work closely with Attorney Karen Flanagan at the State Department. They worked with her two years ago when Washington School had a racial balance issue. The plan created for Washington was very effective, and is the one magnet school in the State where the plan worked. As in her presentation, there are a number of options that the Board can consider. She stated the racial balance problem at the elementary level is not imminent except for Buckley at this point. However, parents should be aware that redistricting may have to take place over the next decade.

Mr. Spadacinni asked if the district is speaking with any State employees in the Construction Unit or policymakers that could provide some concepts. He feels the district could benefit greatly from their expertise, particularly with the special education mandate. He does not feel there is a correlation of fulfilling mandates and closing the achievement gap. He believes smaller learning communities has a positive impact on actually closing the achievement gap. He asked to what degree these environments can be created while fulfilling the infrastructure needs.

Dr. Brett stated that the district looks at the State Department as presenting these mandates, but in addition to this, they have provided the district with one specific resource, the Special Education Resource Center. The district is now working with SERC who is helping to develop a model for closing the achievement gap. SERC is known for providing resources and professional development for teachers.

Additionally, Dr. Mistretta commented that the case manager from the State spent a few weeks with the district interviewing staff and parents, and reviewing student files. The district also talks to people in the School Facilities Unit all of the time regarding Manchester issues. She also noted that they have attended meetings with Commissioner Sternberg.

Mr. Werbner stated that everyone has to remember that the overcrowding at the elementary school level is not caused by the recent case law or recent legislation. The overcrowding already exists. The plan to renovate two schools every two years was predicated upon picking those schools initially that did not have a space problem. Now attention has to be redirected to those who have space problems, Nathan Hale, Washington, and Highland Park. This may require putting additions onto schools which was not anticipated as part of the every two year plan. The cost of renovating these schools could be significantly higher if additions are needed if the same grade configuration is used.

Ms. Ouellette restated one of the most significant issues that can impact student learning is the poverty level. The research states that a school with up to 40 percent poverty can impact all of the students in the school.

Mr. Zingler asked about the timeframe given to the district for upgrading the schools. He realizes the deadline is December 1, but wonders when the deadline was actually imposed.

Dr. Mistretta stated the PJ case was in the courts for eleven years, and the decision was finalized in May 2002. The following year, she reorganized the Special Education administration. The district also sent administrators to professional development. The district made plans and each school had an action plan for inclusion. The effect on buildings and construction was not considered. This past June, it became clear that it would have a big effect on the facilities and information began to be gathered. She stated that she had meetings with Mr. Werbner to discuss this impact.

Mr. Zingler referred to the items that every school needs to accommodate Special Education students. He asked if there were a list of facilities identifying what is needed at each.

Dr. Mistretta stated that this has been done and is in the Capital Improvement Plan, which the Building and Sites Committee will be reviewing. She stated that not all things will be necessary immediately. They have reviewed every special education student in the district and determined what school the student would possibly return to. Should the parents want the student to return, they have reviewed what needs to be done to a particular building. In not all cases, will the student be able to return to their home school. If students cannot be provided for at their home school, citations will remain. She does not think it is ultimately impossible to return all students to their home school, nor is it impossible to racially balance the school; however, it will be a challenge. She feels the Board of Education and Superintendent is up to the challenge.

Mr. Zingler asked if certain options that were proposed would alleviate some of the space needs in terms of the elementary schools. He has heard the idea of a 5/6 and 7/8 school, as well as other ideas. If a grade level was pulled out of the elementary school, would it free up enough space to accommodate some of the special education needs. His biggest concern is to minimize any embarrassment for a family who has a child with special needs and would want to be located in their home school,

Dr. Mistretta stated that 30 years ago, special education students were educated in institutions. Manchester is quite proud that these students were brought back into the district. She stated it is now time to take the next step and have them educated in their home schools. She believes there is one grade level configuration that does solve a lot of these needs, whether it is racial balance at the middle schools or transferring students from Bennet to Illing, She believes the best grade level configuration for this would be the 5/6, 7/8 model. She feels that it is time to bring students together at a much earlier age, rather than waiting until grade 9. The town needs to come together and stop having one Title I school and one school that is the urban school.

Mr. Zingler stated the teacher certification is K-6, which would work with the 5/6 configuration.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd thanked Dr. Mistretta for her presentation and all of her work over the past six months. He asked how many children are currently being served at the Buckley and Keeney programs.

Mrs. Fournier stated that approximately 65 children are being served in the programs combined.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd suggested that some of these students are at their home schools at either Buckley or Keeney already. He stated this to put things into perspective in order to move forward. He commented that the three issues Dr. Mistretta addressed could be looked at as problems, but could also be viewed as opportunities as well. He feels it is a tremendous opportunity to be able to address these issues in a way that can alleviate the racial imbalance and economic disparities within the system in a way that is educationally appropriate for the children in Manchester. The figures for Bennet scores emphasizes that it is a very good learning environment. This needs to be replicated throughout the district so that every students has an opportunity, regardless of facility needs.

Mr. Becker stated that the Board of Directors made a commitment that they wanted to have a ballot question before June 2005 regarding Bennet. This cannot be done until a decision is made regarding the most effective grade configuration for the district. If the June deadline is missed, then it would have to wait for an entire year to reapply for funding through the State Board of Education. He does not know if this deadline can be made due to all the issues the Town faces. He asked for a status report.

Mr. Robinson stated the issue has been under consideration for years, and during the last go-around, the Board determined the configuration was appropriate. However, given this new information, coupled with Board members who feel that the 5/6, 7/8 configuration is educationally sound if not superior, the Board would certainly take up the issue again. In light of the referendum deadline, he believes the decision could be made fairly quickly.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd commented that some of this work has already been done and noted the Mr. Rizzo has been promoting this configuration for a long time.

Mr. Edwards reviewed the history of the 5/6, 7/8 configuration. It was proposed when the original high school referendum to build a new school was promoted. This referendum was defeated. He commented that no one knows how much the 5/6 configuration had to do with the defeat. His fear is that the Board of Education takes an expedient standpoint on these issues and is not making decisions based on the educational soundness. He noted that it was not that long ago when the Board of Education voted for the 6-7-8 grade configuration. He has a personal preference regarding the grade configuration, and does not believe it makes much difference if it is 5/6, 7/8 or 6-7-8. It is not a defining issue to the education of the students. These decisions must also be made with consideration of how they fit into the facilities, and how much it will cost to make facilities for this particular plan. He stated that if the issues become too cumbersome for a spring ballot, then it should have been ready for the previous ballot question. He stated that it has been many years and far too long that Bennet has been left in the condition it is in. Money needs to be put into these buildings. He stated that if a referendum could not occur in the spring 2005, then the Board should at least put some money up to address the conditions at the school to make it safe with respect to the facility itself.

Mr. Rizzo agreed with Mr. Edwards. The Board of Education and the Board of Directors has made decisions based on expediency. He feels the question should not be what could be done with Bennet, but how the district will educate this particular age group in a way that will speak directly to the student's achievement and the achievement gap. There are some very complicated issues that were outlined in the presentation. These issues have nothing to do with buildings, but everything to do with how the students are educated. He feels the Board of Education needs to assess these issues. He made a recommendation to the Board of Education to undertake a discussion of grade configurations. He noted that all ideas have to be reviewed, cost estimates gathered, and an intelligent discussion needs to take place on how it will all impact student achievement.

Mr. Spadaccini agreed with Mr. Edwards and his remarks regarding Bennet. He feels the issue of grade configuration is a matter within the purview of the Board of Education. His opinion about grade configuration is that, while he appreciates the recommendation from Dr. Mistretta, he has significant reservations about the concept of a 5/6 and 7/8 school. His concern is because two schools will be created that will be substantially larger than what the district already has. He believes a decision has to be made based on what makes the most sense from an academic standpoint in an effort to close the achievement gap. The research he has read states the trend is to go toward smaller schools, and not larger schools.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd agreed that this is a decision for the Board of Education to make. He suggested the grade configuration of 5/6 and 7/8, and in order to reduce a large school population, create a magnet school within the district, utilizing the existing Bennet. This would create smaller learning communities. He noted that there are a lot of variables to address this equation and make it work. He feels that there is a way that Bennet can exist educationally, and this plan may provide the opportunity to renovate a building at a time. He feels there is a strong segment within the community who wants Bennet to remain in educational use.

Mr. Robinson commented that as the Board goes forward, he does not want the Joint Board not lose momentum because the Board of Education has to make a decision in the meantime. He stated that the Board is perhaps looking at a spring referendum, and some serious questions have to be dealt with in terms of costs. These basic questions have to be explored much more fully than they have been in the past. He feels the Boards should meet within the next month to get moving if they are serious about a springtime decision.

Mr. Edwards clarified his plan which is a concept for Bennet. While his preference is to build a new school, he was trying to build consensus to get people on the same page. His plan states that rather than pulling grade 5 out of the elementary schools, that Bennet is made into a grade 6 only school. By doing this, the Rec building could be turned back into a rec building. It wouldn't be necessary to build big additions or connect buildings. The program could be housed in the Franklin, Barnard, Cone buildings, turning the Cheney building into a place for Central Office. This would free up space in the existing Central Office, connecting to Robertson School. In addition, Illing would be make into a 7/8 school, which would necessitate building an addition to that school. This would also allow for less swing space required, and a building by building renovation project.

Mr. Werbner stated that part of the attempt to bring this information to both Boards was to try to gain consensus on some of the major issues as they explore sites and facilities and analyze potential costs, and will then have an idea as to what the space has to accommodate. It is essential that if the Boards want a spring 2005 referendum, that specific ideas be evaluated. He feels both Boards need to meet immediately to address the questions that Dr. Mistretta placed before them.

Mr. Becker stated there was a definite time frame for a spring 2005 referendum. It would be helpful to have administration map out a particular timeline as to when decisions have to be made. The Boards can assess these issues, but the final vote has to be no later than late March or Early April.

Mr. Werbner stated they have given some thought to this in terms of a timeline. It would be his opinion that if the Boards want to move toward a June 30 referendum, a decision would have to be made by the end of January as to what it is in terms of the educational plan that the Board wants to achieve. They would then have February and March to cost out, plan and make decisions on facilities with a Board action in April for a May or June referendum. If the educational decision was made in April, there would not be enough time to cost out the plan with confidence for a June referendum. This is a very aggressive schedule, which also takes place during budget season.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd suggested that all the ideas are inventoried, having a discussion to list the pros and cons in order to eliminate certain options and set some direction. This will help lead the decision making process. In addition, the community needs to know that there is no stone left unturned, as there is a political element of selling the product before the voters. He suggested the Boards reconvene as a joint body, or whoever wants to be available, for a televised facilitated meeting.

Mr. Spadaccini agreed with Deputy Mayor Howroyd's idea to have a facilitated meeting soon.

Mr. Robinson suggested the Boards plan to reconvene on the week of December 13. On the next Board of Education agenda, these topics are listed for discussion as well.

Deputy Mayor Howroyd suggested that the members of the respected Boards forward to the Superintendent or Manager their suggestions for topics to be considered for the joint meeting.

MOTION: Edwards/Nye s.v. The Board of Education and Board of Directors adjourn at 9:30 p.m. (Unanimous)