Joint Melrose / Wakefield School Committee Meeting with Legislators

This past Wednesday, April 5^th, the Melrose and Wakefield School Committees partnered to hear Senator Jason Lewis and Representatives Paul Brodeur and Donald Wong speak to education related legislative topics that impact both communities.

Big picture since Ed Reform was passed in 1993:

·               There is growing understanding and buy-in that we may need another “grand bargain.”

·               The achievement gap is just as large as 1993 so we haven’t achieved the goal of educational equity.

·               There remains a divisive debate around charter schools.

·               The Foundation Budget Review Commission Report has spurred a growing appetite in the House and Senate for education funding reform. It would likely be a multi-year effort.

The FY18 Governor’s Budget and education funding:

·               There remains a large structural deficit ($800M-$1B) and we’re not bringing in enough revenue to cover it.

·               We’ve been in recovery for many years, but inherent problems like legislatively mandated reductions in income tax, sensitivity of sales tax revenue (with more purchases being made online), and the fact that products vs. services like Airbnb are taxed, overshadow opportunities to improve the spending outlook.

·               The legislature may be willing to provide more than the $20 year-over-year per student addition that the Governor’s budget contains.

·               The budget must be balanced vs. the federal government, which can borrow.

·               Wakefield has received better Ch. 70 funding this year but they started from a worse position. Melrose is the opposite.

·               Impacting the charter school reimbursement line will take “brute force advocacy.”

·               It’s important to be mindful of other budget lines that impact schools (e.g. early intervention).

·               Mass. School Building Authority (MSBA) funding is flat while construction costs rapidly escalate.

·               The unemployment rate is very low and there is a skills gap. Vocational skills are needed to fill some of the jobs that remain unfilled and vocational schools play an important role in that.

·               Students need more access to AP classes, both the opportunity to take them and the opportunity to excel in them. (MA leads the nation in AP test scores of 3 and above.)

·               Is there a potential for cost sharing (construction, athletic fields, etc.) between the Northeast Voc and Wakefield High School?

·               It may take another lawsuit (like Hancock in 1993) to fundamentally increase education funding again, although the “Millionaire’s Tax” slated for the FY18 ballot would help that funding if passed.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA):

·               DESE has just submitted their plan although there was criticism from the Mass. Teachers’ Association (MTA).

·               It encompasses elements of education outside of core academics (like the arts; social emotional learning; and school culture and climate).

·               Senator Pat Jehlen is Vice Chair of the Education Committee and Chair of the Special Senate Subcommittee on Innovative and Alternate Education. She is a “fierce opponent” of accountability measures and may support the doors that ESSA opens up in that area.

·               There are concerns that DESE will try to measure social emotional learning in schools, which is a concern because it would actually be a measure of students’ mental health and students are in schools for only six hours per day (i.e. schools would be held responsible).

·               One positive element is that ESSA values access to coursework and there would be an emphasis on Grade 9.

·               State accountability measures are suspended next year.

Another Issue:

·               The new calculation for disadvantaged students has negatively impacted grants (e.g. Melrose is losing $90K in Title I money next year). Vocational schools are also significantly impacted (meaning a potentially greater burden on sending districts). Last year, the temporary fix was to freeze reimbursement levels.

The legislators asked for help from both Committees to understand the prospective impacts of the federal government’s lower funding.

Next steps:

·               At the next meeting of both the Wakefield and Melrose School Committees, members are expected to reflect on the session and bring forward themes from the session.

·               From those themes, Chairmen of both Committees will draft an advocacy letter reflecting recommendations that will be presented at the meetings immediately following (for discussion and potential approval).

·               The letter will be sent jointly to legislators immediately following.

FY18 School Budget and More: Recent School Committee Meetings

The Melrose School Committee held three business meetings in the last three weeks: March 21^st, March 28^th, and April 4^th. We focused on approving the FY18 School Budget, but accomplished other business too.

Here are some highlights in the FY18 Budget compared with FY17:

·               Add two kindergarten teachers (Hoover and Winthrop).

·               Add two elementary itinerant teachers (art or music or health/PE).

·               Add .5 teacher at the secondary level (and share more teachers between the middle and high school for efficiency).

·               Add .5 social worker (funded through a grant from MAAV).

·               Increase funding for translations by $10K.

·               Pre-pay $290K for the ELA reading series and other materials/licenses.

·               Eliminate one secretary position.

·               Apply more money from revolving accounts (Ed. Stations, E-Rate, School Choice, etc.) in anticipation of more staff members taking advantage of the health insurance opt out provision.

·               Reduce the structural deficit by about $100K. (The structural deficit is the difference between the budget that is passed and the amount of money that we can fund at the start of the year. The Board of Aldermen allocates the amount of the structural deficit from the city to the schools in October, when additional cash comes from the state.)

Some other items of note:

·               Lueders Environmental Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals made monetary donations to the schools. Hayes Instruments donated nine file cabinets and a bookcase. The Lincoln School PTO donated Android and Chromebook tablets with three carts.

·               We formally approved a School Resource Officer for the Middle School.

·               Later start times were delayed from this fall to Fall 2018. An administrative working group will be assembled to iron out any unresolved implementation issues.

·               A letter will be sent from the Committee, in collaboration with the Superintendent that reaffirms that all students and families, regardless of age, race, color, sex, gender identity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability, are welcome in our school community.

·               We talked more about our Communication Plan and the policies we plan to review in the context of its implementation.

Up next:  our April 5^th Legislators’ meeting in conjunction with the Wakefield Public Schools.

School Committee/Supt. FY18 Budget Q & A on March 21st

Prior to our regularly scheduled business meeting on March 21^st, 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 / 2^nd 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.

FY18 MVMMS and MHS Programs of Study, Budget Presentation, and Decisions on Fees

The Committee held a meeting this past Tuesday, March 7^th to hear about and decide on approving the FY18 Middle School and High School Programs of Study (POS), receive the proposed FY18 budget from Supt. Taymore in order to begin deliberations, and vote FY18 fees. Here’s the rundown (and don’t forget to check the minutes for the official version):

Program of Study: Middle School (Principal Conway and Assistant Principal Parsons) http://mvmms.melroseschools.com/our-school/course-descriptions/#sthash.yzSCcmW5.dpbs

§   Most changes center around A Block, addressing issues around writing, introduction to band and orchestra, and challenge science classes (which students will still select, but labs will now be based on all three major science topics. One teacher will take one particular domain and focus on that).

§   There were updates to English course descriptions (especially challenge classes).

§   Special education instruction includes focusing on writing for students on IEP’s.

§   Classes were selected in Aspen last year using the POS as a guide, and it’s important that students choose classes that interest them when they make selections.

§   In the past, the MS has clustered students identified as gifted in specific challenge classes, but this year will give them options based on their interests.

§   There may be more sharing of staff with MHS this year (currently at 8 teachers).

§   The course selection process is in late May/early June, but information will go out to families in April.

§   They’ve developed a possible 8^th grade 2D art class with a competency based learning approach for 1-2 trimesters. (It would potentially allow students to test out of Art I as a freshman at MHS (so they ultimately have more art opportunities in later grades).

§   The POS can’t say how many sections will or will not run. They can’t always run as many sections as students might like.

§   We have the “Cadillac” of foreign language programs and some students may even be able to take two languages during some portion of their time at MVMMS.

Program of Study: High School (Principal Merrill and Assistant Principal Corrigan) http://melrosehigh.melroseschools.com/2016/03/mhs-2016-2017-program-studies/#sthash.pKdtzScj.dpbs

§   Very few changes this year.

§   Considerations: Competency Based Education (CBE), Project Based Learning (PBL), Social Emotional Learning (SEL), and class size.

§   Students can advance more quickly in Fine Arts if they successfully complete a portfolio review (with standards developed by the art teachers).

§   Dual enrollment: outstanding feedback from students, this year expanded offerings.

§   More personalized learning for 12^th grade students is expected

§   AP Capstone Diploma program (2^nd year) and AP Research new.

§   Honors Stats in new; AP computer science is a new math course.

§   There are revised requirements around Wellness.

§   New student options: later start for 12^th grade students by skipping A block to work on college/career planning; and early release for an exploration opportunity (career planning and/or training).

§   Starting scheduling process a little earlier, hoping to have 1^st run before April vacation, which should help MVMMS and support best assignment of staff.

§   Rare now to have course conflicts (due to the new scheduling protocol).

§   Minimum regular ed class size is around 15.

Budget priorities and impact on the budget (Supt. Taymore and  Director of Finance and Administrative Affairs Marianne Farrell)

§   Last year’s priorities were different with a level service budget and a goal of maintaining direct services to students. There were some reductions to balance the budget (e.g. three administrators).

§   This year: SEL, inclusive practices, instructional technology, and enrollments are the priorities. As of today, enrollment totals 3818 (with K at 304). Professional development is very important and is being employed across the district in a variety of ways taking time, money, and other resources.

§   Standard challenges: loss of state and federal funding, increasing costs for transportation, health insurance, special ed. programs and services, English Language students (enrollment of 150) and the translation services required, unknown curriculum changes (e.g. history, etc.).

§   Document is shorter than previous budget documents; less information at the beginning and more throughout. Offsets are now combined at the front of the document.

§   Four categories are detailed: salaries, materials and supplies, technology, and contracted services. There was a review of each section (individual schools, itinerants, music, athletics, pupil personnel services, teaching and learning, administration, and system-wide).

§   Committee discussion: excellent formatting, be careful in terminology (we do not have a deficit but instead the Supt. has presented a budget that differs from what the City can afford); Melrose is a minimum aid community in the Governor’s budget with assessments for charter schools increased (even with 19 fewer students); vocational school assessments are based on average income per household which doesn’t make sense; slightly lower structural deficit in the school budget; we look at any spending we can make prior to the end of this year; this is one of the richest teacher contracts in the city’s history; “shocking” youth of our staff has impact on budget; House budget coming next and is unknown; usability and accessibility of the document aligns with recommendations from MASC/MASBO/MASS workshop this past weekend; review of curriculum materials included assessment of their duration and necessary replacement; METCO reimbursements are a state question; possibility of negotiating library materials’ costs in conjunction with other districts (but many materials are charged per pupil and there are state regulations around purchasing)?; concerns around transportation costs; translation services require efforts around district-specific documents and other districts struggle with this also; solving problems like substitute teaching and the shortage of administrators.

Fee Decisions

§   Photography class at MHS: eliminated the fee.

§   Transcripts: eliminated the fee.  

§   HS Athletics: no change to fees.

§   Elementary Music: $5 increase.

§   Ed Stations: 2% increase based on the 2:22 release time.

§   ECC:

§  Stay and Play (summer): 2% increase.

§  Stay and Play (school year): 2% increase.

§  Tuition: 2% increase.

Public Q&A Session on the budget will be held on March 14^th from 6-7:30 in the Aldermanic Chamber of City Hall. It will be open to the public and televised. In order for Subcommittee Chairman Liz DeSelm to combine questions and facilitate efficiently, please send your questions to her in advance at ldeselm@cityofmelrose.org. If time remains, questions will be taken from the audience. Our regular business meeting will follow.