Prior to our regularly
scheduled business meeting on March 21st, Finance and Facilities Chairman Liz
DeSelm facilitated an FY18 Budget Q & A with Supt. Taymore. My notes here;
official minutes online once the Committee approves them.
Supt. Taymore's presentation:
·
Revised budget
process started 3-4 years ago.
·
The budget is
not an automatic rollover every year.
·
The Strategic
Overview helps make a plan for the coming year; it builds upon itself; it’s an
action plan. With input from stakeholders/data/teachers they keep building
that.
·
The Committee
has worked to make adaptations to non-staffing pieces.
·
Last year, the
override loss resulted in a level-service budget but even in that attempt we
lost 3 administrators.
·
This year the SC
wanted to try something different based on self-reflection and assessment. One
of the greatest shifts is the need to build capacity in other areas: SEL,
inclusive practices (not just special ed but all kids and technology); shift
their emphasis to 50-50 academic-social emotional, meaning we can take .5 step
back on academics and 1.5 steps forward on SEL.
o
Added 4th
priority after the original three were set: enrollment. We’ve gone from the typical
13 classes to 15 classes last year, and this year fully anticipate 15. Current
K enrollment for next year=299. Current ECC enrollment for next year is 304.
MHS is 995 this year. MVMMS has an enrollment “trough.” Doing renovations and
modules to compensate at the elementary level.
o
9 new
positions proposed this year, knowing they can’t all be funded.
o
Working to
reallocate, reuse, think about programs (e.g. MVMMS students whose challenges
were interfering with their ability to learn. Added 4th school
psychologist and created the ACCESS program. This year, the program was added
to the Lincoln School.)
o
Hard to
understand what’s behind the numbers (PD, supervision & evaluation, etc.)
o
Slimmed down
the document since it wasn’t necessarily as user-friendly to all. Always a work
in progress. With more data, you see the trends. Now you don’t see the whole
picture over time. Other difficulty, how grant programs are applied (Title I or
Title III).
o
Conversations
about how those monies are used take place twice/month at SC business meetings
when principals and other administrators come and speak to programming, etc.
·
Three
priorities
o
1. Why
conversations about SEL now? As a country/district, swung too far toward
accountability. Now better understand the effects of trauma; students can’t
attend or learn if they aren’t ready to learn; it’s an uphill battle. Is it the
role of the school? “Our job is to serve who’s in front of us.”
o
2. Inclusive
practice: it’s our job to help students succeed. It’s like curb cuts originally
designed for people with disabilities. Who’s using them? Kids on bikes,
skateboards, etc. Education is now the same; it’s a way of thinking about
education. A year ago, the state put out excellent guidelines and Melrose
incorporated them into what we do, making sure that every teacher is seeking
ways for kids to learn.
o
3.
Instructional technology: never a substitute for good instruction. Key is still
the teacher-student relationship, especially at the elementary level. If
students are struggling and have the skill and expertise, find out why they
aren’t learning. As much as we use technology, the teacher is still critical.
Spend a lot of time on PD for skills to support kids. Other districts often
surprised at the amount of progress we’ve made, but we invested the time to do
it.
·
This budget: the
dilemma is to close the delta to provide the best instruction possible. There
will be losses as we struggle to close the gap.
Questions:
·
What is the district philosophy that drives our
goals? Meet the needs of every
student with the goal of producing a contributing member of society. One goal
of SC is to rewrite the mission. Supt. doesn’t think the philosophy varies much
among districts. Supt’s goal is to educate all without labels, to their ability.
Education is one of the most highly regulated industries in this country.
Within what we have, we can’t cut special education (must “maintain your effort”),
Title I grants (must supplement vs. supplant), etc. There are restrictions in
the state about what we have to do. Every child: PE, history, high school
graduation courses. People surprised that schools can’t have studies/study
halls anymore. We try to be as creative as we can be. Blended learning /
advance by portfolio / combining high school classes for efficiencies / same
schedule for MVMMS + MHS because can share resources. Other efficiencies: all PE
teachers must be dual-certified in wellness and also encourages dual in
science/math and English/history. Can we use some MS teachers to do one more
block at MHS as population is low. Reorganized due to needs at Lincoln –
created student support coordinator. Can’t really see these in numbers. May be
disagreement with modules vs. 5-8, but redistribute to Winthrop and Hoover
(efficiency).
·
Where can we see grant revenue associated with
grant expenses? See it in MUNIS
reports. Seeing negatives doesn’t necessarily mean we owe money, it’s a
function of MUNIS. MAAV grant – on surface it’s on dating violence but
additionally, let’s them talk about other things (paying for things like the
Coffee House). Our grants are audited every year.
·
Synergies and cost efficiencies: speak to with
respect to partnerships with other districts, etc. 1. Middlesex League: 3 years ago agreed they’d
work together as a group. Were just awarded $40K as a group by Lahey to
write/execute/analyze YRBS; 2. Another: state finally adopted state science
standards. Now, 16 communities in consortium working to create curriculum and think
about trainings; 3. In our city, joint purchasing with the city. Combined
depts. with IT, DPW, attorney; 4. Meeting with Wakefield soon (with
legislators). Thinking about on-line courses with them, etc. (Hard because
we’re a city and they’re a town.)
· District priorities of SEL/inclusive practices but
narrative focuses on K-5. How will they be applied at MVMMS/MHS? Getting better at naming it and coming up with
systems for it. Work started with best instructional practices, and many were
inclusive practices. Best instructional practices: small group work,
collaboration, etc. Good social emotional learning includes self-regulation,
collaboration, responsibility, etc. NOT psychoanalyzing but teaching them to be
successful in larger world. Every student has the opportunity to have his/her
needs met. Doing the same practices at MVMMS and MHS. The District C
Accommodation Plan. Every kid is connected to an adult, and there are many
other things implemented. In ed, talk about Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III. Up
the training in those areas and we’re beginning to see it play out across K-12.
·
Accountability of teachers? Every teacher, administrator, and the supt.
evaluated 24/7. Evaluation rubric is in place. It’s a way of life. The formal
system: 2 year cycle. Unannounced visits (biggest difference); no more dog and
pony shows. 3 hours of walk-throughs today – doesn’t evaluate teachers but
evaluates administrators (e.g. what did you see?). Teachers w>3 yrs
experience: End of 1 year: formative / 2nd year: summative.
Teachers’ goals are tied to district. New: multiple announced and unannounced visits
+ mentoring program. Staff has said most valuable for feedback. (Staff says
feedback is the most important thing: how can I help you grow as a teacher? Conversations
best.) Concerns around SEL and inclusive practices. Has been criticized because
she runs about 20% of teachers at Needs Improvement, but new young teachers are
developing. Our job is to help them get the supports/feedback they need to get
better.
·
WRT increasing enrollment – how is budget impacted? At elementaries, 2 more classroom teachers and
also need specials (like art, music, PE, etc.). Teachers need collaborative
time (to talk about students and their progress + meet with principal). Strands
of 15 classrooms increases by one for every incoming year. Need materials as
the bubble rises. At HS, partially depends on student choices. A little bit of
movement among teachers every year (some by choice and some not). Teachers are asked
for their intent and sometimes that can be accommodated.
·
ECC: 8 % raise: why? 1. 4.4 FTE increase in staffing as opposed to .6;
2. Staff at ECC scheduled differently (some FTE are .9 and other variances); 3.
1 extra position for a special education placement. (FTE’s can be fractions of
teachers because ECC doesn’t have full time programs; those teachers generally
don’t want to work FT.)
·
To what extent is budget funded by schools vs.
city? Schools fund special
education for children ages 3-22. It is both cost-effective and cost-avoidant
and those students learn with typically developing learners. They come to
elementary with much better skills.
·
Itinerants? Staff that travels. Two categories: art, music, PE assigned to 2
schools. Second group in that list are SPED support services (OT, PT, speech)
captured in SPED services because they’ll change during the year based on
students. They are sometimes not assigned to buildings until June or July. Made
sense for budget purposes to have on one page.
·
Teaching & Learning: 4 content directors, etc.? They flow in between MVMMS and MHS. Last year, cut
3 content directors.
·
Expand on instructional materials: increase fro
$20K to $140K? One piece: more
students. Buy “consumable” books in K-2 so need to be replaced. Pearson books
purchased and spread over multiple years. $80K that was a pre-pay (in change
log from last year) and may come off if we can pre-pay this year which would bring
the line close to what we had last year. Froze the budget last December/January
(stopped discretionary spending). In next month, look to see what funds are
remaining and will buy against next year – sacrificing during the year in order
to plan ahead.
·
Talk about freezing of salaries. Only person being frozen is Cyndy.
·
Why SC line increase? More members are participating in PD plus increase
in MASC dues. Victorian Fair booth also comes out of this line.
·
Current document: cut to ELL staff? 150 students now. Recently found not at fault for
ELL services so have some flexibility in that line item. Our services are fine.
·
In document: no discussion of sub pay. Proposed to be raised $20K this coming year. No
easy answer. Not convinced that we’d get more subs if we paid even $100/day. Constant
struggle. Tried advertising / explored working with agency (but that costs). Choices
to be made. At HS: 2 permanent subs who can take up to 2 classes each. Teachers
required to leave work for students. Piloting same sub program at MVMMS to see
if it works. Distinguish: day-to-day subs vs. Long Term Subs. (LTS gets
different pay: Bachelor 1 lane in salary schedule and they must be licensed).
Why LT absences?: young staff having children, older staff with elderly family
members.
·
With 2 new K’s will there be additional paras? Para grant is gone and nothing will bring it back.
(This is not unusual; state grants designed to get you started assuming that
city/town will absorb the cost later.) Larger Q: what do paras do and how do we
use them? This is difficult budget that will reach into personnel.
·
Best practice for PD? PD increased b/c we now do in-house - learning walk-throughs, mentoring, etc.
Pull teachers during the day and review data (who’s doing well? Who’s not? Why?)
Teachers learning from teachers is the most effective form of PD. Today’s PD was
based on behavioral health challenges to about 40 district “pioneers.” State changed licensure
regulations around SEI/RETELL and students with disabilities. For other PD, the
PD Committee (teachers, SC member,
admins) survey teachers: what do they need?). Teacher-requested PD also affects
what PD is delivered.
·
MUNIS reports only visible when reported out but
public information is in meeting packets under consent agendas. Spirit of question: private grants are not
reported in budget; they are small but help teachers and are reported on MEF”s
website. They are in quarterly donations report. PTO grants are in donations
report. Major grants (Title grants, SPED, Safe and Supportive Schools). 94-142
pays tuitions. Title I only ESL. Title II only PD. Not a lot of leeway on
grants. Federal grant review in the fall. Outside auditing in the spring.
·
ECC:
is there a way to differentiate teachers at ECC? Schedules change from year to
year. ECC registration (3 options): 3 year old, multi-age, pre-K so parents
choose. In response to final numbers, Donna Rosso decides on staffing needs.
(Efficiency in performance: 3 day people also work 2 day program.)
Wrap up and thank you by
Ms. DeSelm.
