|
Notes provided by: Joan Axelrod School Committee Meeting:10/28/03 Attending: K. Donovan, Rob Addelson, Suzanne Owayda, Marilyn Bisbicos, Joanne Gurry, Jeff Thielman, Alan Brown, Bob Penta, Steve Carme, Paul Schlichtman, Sue Sheffler, Joani LaMachia, Barbara Goodman, Al Tosti, Charlie Foskett, Amanda Formica, Barbara Weber, Steve Pereira Agenda a. Public Participation:
Ginny Fuller (and many Arlington Teachers) Summary of Discussion 1. Rob Addelson introduced by K. Donovan: New Chief Financial Officer for the schools 2. Community Participation Ginny Fuller (Arlington Education Association, President), surrounded by 75 -100 teachers appealed to the School Committee on the position of teachers about salaries. Basic arguments
Ginny asked two teachers to speak about their experiences this year: Shelly Obelsky (High School) and Lynda Verity (4th grade Thompson). Shelly Obelsky
Lynda Verity
3. Special Education: Bonnie Bisbicos Newspapers this week have been reporting on the change in Circuit Breaker compensation to schools from state. The amount schools will be reimbursed by the state for students with special needs is drastically below the level the schools had been promised. Until this year, schools split cost of students in residential settings with the state, 50%-50%. Last year, under that plan, Arlington received $668,629. However, for the '03-'04, the reimbursement plan changed and schools were promised 75% of the cost for any student whose program was more than four times the base rate for regular students, i.e. for any student whose cost was >$29,320. (This included students in residential, private day or in-school special ed. programs). With this formula, Arlington should have received $814,951. However, instead of 75%, the state this week announced they will only reimburse at a rate of 27.4%. Therefore, Arlington should receive only $287,222. This leaves $381,407 less than Arlington received last year from the state in reimbursement (the town must pay all costs initially). Some extra money was allotted in the projected budget in the eventuality that the state did not pay their due but it will not cover the entire differential. (Several handouts on Circuit Breaker Payments & Special Education Reimbursement were distributed.) 4. Discussion on school capacity / redistricting Suzanne Owayda led participants through a discussion about school capacity assumptions, as defined in the Facilities Study Report written in 1993. Reviewed each assumption in the report to determine if any should be changed, amended, etc. (apparently to determine how to proceed with redistricting and if a school should be closed). Specific issues discussed: Grade configuration should be K-5, 6-8, 9-12: There was general consensus that this assumption should not change since all the new construction was predicated on this assumption - although it was mentioned that a "magnet school" concept could be used to reduce overcrowding at some schools. It was felt that sound educational philosophy should guide decision-making and that the decision to move to the middle-school model became the cornerstone of the system. Special education classes / students should be distributed throughout the schools: There was consensus that this was appropriate, although it was noted that special education classes are not distributed evenly because of overcrowding in some schools. Parity in facilities across districts: This led to a discussion about the fact that, due to overcrowding, Bishop lost its music and art facilities immediately after reconstruction to make room for classroom space. This, in turn led to an extended discussion about the possible need for redistricting. Some suggested that boundaries for districts may have to be "fuzzy" and evaluated more frequently depending upon where there is space. Al Tosti suggested that it may be useful to think of three districts with two or three schools in each and principals decide how to divvy up the students in that district depending upon which school has space at which grade level. Based on population estimates from the 1993 report (which have been accurate - the study predicted 2300 students in K-5 this year and enrollment is 2270), maximum class size was projected to be 25 with a mean of 22.5. Currently the mean is 21.5. It was noted that the only way to save money is to close a school and increase average class size. This led to an extended discussion about class size. Alan Brown (Stratton) emphasized that the mandate for schools has changed with Ed. Reform and No Child Left Behind. You have to teach to different everyone in the class with diverse styles and a broad range of abilities; you can't just teach to the middle. In the past, special ed. kids were not being serviced in the mainstream; the educational research suggests that feedback to students and small groups are essential to insure learning. A difference of only five kids can make a huge difference in a teacher's ability to reach those kids. Other principals emphasized that primary grades need smaller class size than upper elementary grades. There are more students entering the primary grades this year than last, so classes are even larger. Title I Director emphasized that primary grade instruction is essential, since proficiency of reading at grade 3 predicts graduation rates and class size predicts reading proficiency at grade 3. Consensus seemed to be that there should be two different targets for class size: Lower (18) for K-2 and slightly higher (21) for grades 3-5. Mr. Foskett raised two questions: Why is it that we are paying teachers less than neighboring towns if our per-pupil is about at the state mean? How is it possible that, during construction, we had space to house one school in another school and yet we need 7 schools? Responses explained that our teacher salaries are comparable to places like Holyoke and Lowell but our education is very different. Principals noted that it had been difficult to absorb one school into another and sometimes one school was spread across 2 or 3 others. It was a challenge and facilities and services were compromised. Also, Arlington is operating under a waiver to have all grades of BIP at the high school. Elementary BIP students must be returned to an age appropriate facility. Paul Schlictman noted that, for the size of the town, our school system is small and should not be that pinched for money. Have to look at how much town funds are being allotted to the schools. 1993 Facilities assessment presumed that Metco students would continue to be included in Arlington. Consensus is that Metco should continue. 1993 assessment assumed space for special education. Sp. Ed. is now occupying 39 classrooms and the hope is to expand the number of classes by bringing students back from private placements and by having LABBB programs (like BIP) housed in Arlington, which are less costly to the town. 5. Community Relations Subcommittee report by Joani LaMachia The sub-committee met and reviewed communities that had redistricted recently and discussed policy issues such as "when to transport", "when to require students to cross a busy street". Committee is developing a community questionnaire. Rob Addelson reports that GIS can assist with population distribution analysis. It was noted that three years ago a redistricting plan was explored. It was suggested that K. Donovan should unearth that plan and it should be re-visited rather than starting from "scratch" again. This again led to a discussion about class size and what people could "live with". Meeting adjourned. Committee meets again next Tuesday, Nov. 4th at 7:30. SPOT
offers these notes as a service to the community. |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
