Sue Flicop

The whole swine flu situation at Oak Hill raises a big question for me—besides the obvious one about whether or not the school should have been closed. I think we will be able to answer that in the next few days as the number of students who are out sick either increases or decreases. To me the other big question is about communication: how should communications have been handled right from the beginning?

With alarming information in the national and local press, it was only natural for parents to need more info and reassurance than the brief note and phone call from our school system and health department. One constructive idea is to have parents directly ask questions—either that first night in person at the Oak Hill concert or on the school website where the experts in Newton can respond quickly. An alternative is to ask parent leaders to help identify questions to which the community needs answers. More recently, the Q & A format with lots of information and data seemed to work much better.

As an Oak Hill parent, I heard rumors about when the school would close—none of which turned out to be true. The absence of information does NOT control rumors, it fosters the SPREAD of rumors.

We now have so much access to correct and incorrect information through the internet that it is important for Newton public schools and the Health Department to get out in front of this type of situation by communicating openly and fully from the beginning. This is an important lesson to help us prepare for a more serious health crisis.

Click here to read my first guest column in the Newton TAB: Newton TAB Guest Column 5-12-09.

Just some quick thoughts regarding Monday’s meeting where the CAG discussed the capital cost structure report. I’ve been disturbed by the process the report outlined for how school maintenance is actually scheduled, performed, and paid for. As the report describes, it is very inefficient and leads to a system where no single department is accountable for the work. We end up with less maintenance work in the schools for the money.

The CAG recommendation is to merge both departments and house the new group on the municipal side. This will create administrative efficiencies as well as increased accountability since one group will be directly responsible for all the work. In the end, we should have a better system for maintenance for our dollars—and would better be able to figure out where any problems are. As usual, the devil is in the details, but we can surely start making this change where the schools will certainly benefit.

School Committee Meeting—Budget Info
April 27, 2009

There were a few non-budget related items to report on tonight, as well as another budget proposal:

Swine Flu Update: The Health and Human Services Commissioner, David Naparstek, with members of his staff, presented at tonight’s meeting about the swine flu outbreak. They reviewed the school policies in place to handle illnesses, and added that the school nurses are specifically looking for children suffering from fever and respiratory problems. People are reminded that the US cases have been mild so far, and that we have a good surveillance system. Dori Zaleznik added that people with symptoms should stay home and call the doctor to get their advice. Going to an office, hospital, or school will only spread the infection.

Last Day of School: The last day of school for students will be a half day on Tuesday, June 23rd. The last day for teachers is on Wednesday, June 24th.

Fees Discussion:
• Certain discounts for C permits (mainly for-profit or non-Newton organizations) will be eliminated to result in an additional $18,025 in increased revenue. [NOTE: This does not affect PTOs, the aftercare programs or other Newton non-profits.]
• Student parking fees at the high schools were raised by $20 to $200 per semester.
• Student bus fees have increased by $40 per student for next year. [NOTE: A report with full-scale analysis of transportation fees and recommendations is expected soon.]

Budget Discussion: Click here for the latest budget update: April 27 budget update. This was presented by the Superintendent, who explained that cuts in the circuit breaker (State money which helps cover the costs associated with certain out-of-district tuitions for children with special needs) could range anywhere from $500K to $1 million. This will remain unknown for several weeks at least.

In the meantime, the Superintendent proposed how to spend the Federal stimulus money for special education—this includes items moved out of the operating budget as well as additional enhancements to student services for a total of approximately $1.7 million. (IA and IB on the budget update table)

With $1.8 million in savings from the stimulus money and from additional allocations, the Superintendent proposed adding a combination of direct services to students (requiring FTEs) and one-time expenses. (II on the budget update table)

As a response to the uncertainty of the circuit breaker funding, $750k was proposed as a reserve fund to be allocated as outlined depending on how much is finally made available. (III on the budget table)

The School Committee asked a number of questions about the items, but did not propose tradeoffs or other changes due to the lateness of the meeting. There will be a special meeting to do just this—and possible vote on the budget—tomorrow night, Tuesday, April 28, at 7 p.m. in Room 210 at the Ed Center. If you would like to contact the School Committee to comment, you can email them at schoolcommittee@newton.k12.ma.us.

NewtonServes is one of my favorite events here in Newton.  A day where people throughout the city volunteer at schools, churches, parks, and other organizations, really brings together many disparate groups for a single purpose.  Today was the first day I volunteered at the registration table in the morning…I had always thought that volunteers came to City Hall knowing which project they wanted to work on, but many people came and asked which projects needed volunteers.  What mattered to them was that they helped the community in some way…pretty inspiring!

My daughter and I first volunteered at Horace-Mann and then at Cabot.   It was great to see how wonderful everything looked by the end of the day.  For those who didn’t get the chance to participate today, there are a bunch of schools having NewtonServes projects on May 3rd…click here for more info:  NewtonServes.

Wow…tonight’s meeting was the MOST interesting School Committee meeting I’ve ever been to! Besides covering interesting topics, there was quite a lot of emotion (anger, exasperation, surprise) as well as some laughter. I know I’ve written this before, but if you get a chance, turn on NewTV and watch some of it.

I’m going to cut to the chase here: the Mayor said that he might not be able to give the School Committee about $1 million of the money that he previously included in his allocation for FY10.   [Sounds like this is due to potential budget cuts at the state level, as well as no movement on the Municipal Relief Act.]  Although it sounds like splitting hairs, he did say that he will be giving the schools the $1 million in one-time money that the School Committee essentially lent the city in FY 08. This means a potential reduction in $1 million overall, and that the newly proposed budget might need to be sent back to the drawing board, depending on the final amount that the Mayor has to give to the schools.

Wednesday night’s special meeting of the School Committee is still on—for now. Marc Laredo and Mayor Cohen will be meeting tomorrow to talk more, and will determine whether or not to continue budget talks on Wednesday or wait until more information is available. Either way, there will not be a final vote on the budget until after school vacation.

In other news, there was a discussion about the new proposed fundraising policy. It would be great for the PTOs (and anyone else) to review it and make comments….here’s the link:  SC Proposed Fundraising Policy

One other document was heavily discussed tonight—the report of the Fees Subcommittee. There were no recommendations regarding transportation fees and no notice given to the groups affected by proposed changes in C Permits Use of School Buildings Fees, so no vote was taken tonight. There was discussion about whether or not to vote on the school budget that includes about $100,000 in fee increases without any idea or official vote regarding where the money would come from. The end result of the heated discussion—that there would still be a vote on Wednesday and members could make motions regarding the $100,000—might be moot, since there will be no vote on Wednesday night. Here’s the link to the document:   SC Fees Subcommittee Report

At Monday night’s public discussion of the Citizens Advisory Group report on performance management, I was part of the group focused on pay-for-performance. It was an interesting discussion that I hope will continue in the future. An important distinction for us all to consider is the difference between a pay-for-performance systems and cost reduction methods in education. While in the private sector, increased performance and productivity might lead to the ability to cut staff, this is not necessarily the case in education. If a teacher is very successful on all the performance measurement points, we are not then going to add more students to the classroom, or reduce supports from coaches and professional development resources. The focus of performance evaluations in education is on performance, not on cost reductions.

For almost a year, I’ve been reading up on pay-for-performance in public school systems as part of my research for the Strategic Planning Group. In this group, I have advocated strongly for a 360º evaluation system, which would include feedback from all those people who interact with the employee being evaluated. For example, parents should have an opportunity to evaluate teachers and principals, and teachers should be able to evaluate their superiors. A strong evaluation system that gathers feedback from a variety of sources is an essential part of any pay-for-performance system in Newton.

Overall, I’ve found there are two main elements we need to include no matter what the details of the merit program are: a collaborative relationship with the unions and resources to help institute the system.

First, we need to work collaboratively with the teacher’s union to develop a system that teachers, administrators, and parents understand and embrace. This includes working together to determine how to measure an excellent education—do we use MCAS scores and/or SAT scores and/or other quantitative measures? What qualitative factors do we include? How do we measure the performance of teachers whose subject areas aren’t covered by tests, like art and PE? Do we focus on performance at the school, group, or individual level? These are thorny and quite possibly contentious issues that require input and agreement from the school system and from the community.

Second, we need to have the resources to institute a reward system and make improvements when performance falls short. I don’t just mean the costs of any monetary rewards, but also the costs associated with instituting a strong evaluation system and professional development. Evaluators must be properly trained and supported to create substantive and meaningful feedback that will lead to better performance and honest assessments. Without a way to evaluate staff and to help them improve their performance, a pay-for-performance system will be ineffective at improving our children’s education.

This was part of a regularly scheduled School Committee meeting. The budget discussions were split in two segments: first the Mayor gave a revenue update, and later the School Committee spoke with Ruth Balser about the federal stimulus money.

First the Mayor’s update: The $1 million FY08 turnback money (money that the School Committee had “leftover” at the end of that year due lower-than-predicted expenses) is expected to be returned to the school system for FY10. This is not 100% positive, though, and it would be considered “one-time” money, meaning that there will not be an extra $1 million in the following years. There is a process that the Mayor needs to go through before the money is guaranteed. Specifically, after July 1, he can request that the money be returned to NPS; then the Board of Aldermen will need to vote in favor of the return.

About money from the state, the Mayor was still uncertain as to how much to expect. Any additional funding would be split 70/30, with the school system receiving 70% of the new income.

The state legislature is once again looking at elements of the Municipal Partnership Act, which includes several ideas for increased taxes that would then give more money to cities and towns. First is the telecommunications tax, which would tax telecommunications companies on telephone poles, wires, and switching equipment. Currently, Newton does tax for the poles and wires, but is engaged in a lawsuit with the telecommunications companies over this. Therefore this money has not been available in the general fund. If the new tax were allowed, this money (about $5 million) might be released. Annual income from this tax is approximately $1.4 million. Additional income from taxing the switching equipment would increase this amount. The passage of this tax is uncertain.

Second is an increase in the state meals and hotel tax. This would mean approximately $830,000 to Newton if the state raised the overall tax and then used the lottery formula to divide up the money among communities. The legislature would need to approve this. Another possible method would be to allow cities and towns to charge a meals or hotel tax on their own. This would result in $1.9 million extra for Newton. Again, the legislature would need to approve the measure, but then the Board of Aldermen would need to as well.

Regarding the GIC (the state employees health insurance program), the state legislature is considering making it easier for cities and towns to join this program, which could save money. Currently, 70% of the unions in a community need to approve this shift to the GIC. This restriction could either be removed or lowered. An alternative is to allow cities and towns control over their own plan, similar to the state. This would mean that Newton could determine elements of the employee health care plan (e.g. co-payments) without it being part of collective bargaining. The savings to Newton is unclear at this time.

The federal government is increasing money through the IDEA grant, which is focused on special education. The Newton amount is $1.7 million in the first year, and is expected to be (but not 100% sure) a recurring grant through FY11. How this money can be spent is unclear at the moment. Staff from NPS will be attending workshops on how to apply for the grant money and how it can be used. More info should be available in a couple of weeks.

Second, the conversation with Ruth Balser: The Federal government has given Massachusetts $820 million for two years to apply to K-12 and higher education. An additional $250 million will be coming to the state over two years for special education, and an extra $160 million for two years for Title 1 funding.

When the governor created his budget, he level-funded Chapter 70 funds, which go to cities and towns specifically for education. He also assumed passage of some elements of the Municipal Partnership Act, which meant assuming that cities and towns would have additional income. Finally, the Governor changed the formula used to divide up the money among communities. Since the foundation amount (the amount that it takes to educate a child—calculated by the state) increases each year, this offset any revenue increases, and meant that many communities would not be able to reach this foundation amount in their own budgets. Newton, though, is at 101% of the foundation amount using these calculations.

Ultimately, the Governor was $168 million short in the state’s ability to help all Massachusetts communities to reach a minimum foundation level. Therefore, the first part of the federal money to be disbursed is intended to make all the cities and towns reach this level. This is why Newton did not receive any of the initial funding.

It is unclear how much of the remaining money will come to Newton. The legislature has yet to present its own budget, which might use a different formula than the Governor’s. Under a 5-year reform plan (this is year 3), Newton was due to get an extra $2 million this year in Chapter 70 funds. Given state finances, it is possible that this plan will be frozen until the economic environment improves. Rep. Balser feels that, given the economy, the legislature will vote for some sort of funding increase, although she is not sure which one.

As a result of these discussions and uncertainties, the School Committee agreed to hold off on voting on the FY10 budget a few weeks in the hopes that the division and requirements of federal stimulus spending will become clear. Thursday’s budget meeting is now cancelled, with an interim meeting to be scheduled before a final budget vote on April 13th.

Overall, there were 28 speakers or groups of speakers. Below is a summary of the speakers by topic.

The first four speakers were all students at NNHS who spoke about how important PE/Wellness classes have been to them. They spoke about how these classes reduce stress, improve self-confidence, refresh students, and teach skills that are important throughout their lives.

Cheryl Turgel of the Newton Teachers Association spoke about her disappointment in another year of budget cuts, and how these take a toll on the ability of teachers to provide a quality education. Cheryl also spoke about the need to honor and respect the negotiation process and that there is only an assumption of 0% cola for teachers. She said that the SC should not take that for granted.

There were four people or groups of people who spoke specifically about cuts in the number of lunch attendants. Specifically, the attendants mentioned that they did not want the lunch program to be privatized and that they put a great deal of care into the food. They mentioned that they were doing what they were told to do, that they had made connections with children throughout the schools, and knew about food allergies. Concerns were expressed by several people about how the elementary school children will be monitored and how the lunch/recess process would be managed.

Five speakers addressed the proposed cuts to PE and Wellness at the high school level. As the students did, these adults mentioned all the benefits of physical activity during the day, including stress reduction and increased brain function. The effect of the cuts on SPED students regarding adaptive programming was mentioned, as was the status of Newton as one of the national leaders in health literacy.

The PTO co-chairs of Countryside spoke about the important effect of the math coach in their school this year, and the requirement of the coach for the proposed pilot program next year. The co-chairs felt that the math coaches save on future SPED expenses through early intervention, and also help with enrichment material when needed. They also expressed the need for more resources at their school, which will be approximately 500 students next year. The school has only one literacy specialist, despite being almost twice as large as some other elementary schools. These statements and concerns were supported by two later speakers, one of who also expressed concern about class sizes and the state of the facility.

A group of 6th grade Day Middle School parents spoke about the language disabilities program at the school. They feel that it does not meet the needs of their children, and would like the program used at Oak Hill to be used at Day as well. This was supported by a later speaker as well.

The chair of PTO Council thanked the Superintendent, Central Staff and all 21 principals for taking a 0% cola increase this year. She expressed concern about the cuts in the system and asked that the teacher’s union seriously consider making the same sacrifice as the administrators in an effort to preserve the system as best as possible. She also discussed pros and cons of the budget, including the new and creative programs, and the inclusion of elements of the strategic plan and CAG recommendations.

The co-chairs of NNHS and NSHS School Councils together asked if more money does come into the system then could the SC restore FTEs at the high schools. They feel that the high schools have taken a disproportionate burden in this year’s budget. They also expressed a concern about teacher burn-out and an overall decline in the quality of the school system.

One speaker, a retired teacher, advocated for maintaining a low class size in grades K – 2, since she said studies have shown that class size does have an effect at these lower grades. The teacher felt that the inclusion program necessitated a class size that is manageable and that teacher supports allows them to meet with ELL and SPED specialists during the week.

Two of the co-chairs of Newton Parent Advisory Council for Special Education discussed the programming creativity in the FY10 proposed budget. They also discussed the need to measure the success of the new/extended programs, their concern for the cuts in SPED aides at the elementary level, and concern for cuts in the lunch attendants. This was reinforced by a later speaker, the parent of an autistic child, who asked for restoration of the aides and lunch attendants.

One speaker expressed concern about the use of co-op students, who will be paid more than the lunch attendants and the new Lesley College interns, but will work on bus duty, lunch duty, office work, and classroom work. They will not have the same training as the staff that is being cut.

One speaker proposed a series of ideas to raise money and reduce the cuts in FTEs. These include: reminding the Mayor daily of the $1 million the schools turned back in FY08; using the current $300,000 surplus in the NPS budget now; settling the discrepancy in the budget regarding the percentage of health care (is it 10% or 12%?); changing the co-op students to unpaid internships; cutting the number of sick and personal days in the teacher contract; and not contributing to the salary of the teacher’s union president.

A speaker discussed the large percentage of SPED students in Newton relative to Needham. He also felt that the school system is too willing to take over parent responsibilities, e.g. underage drinking, obesity.

The last speaker was a student who feels that people need to make sacrifices this year, and that they should not be in education, but rather in the physical plant of the schools.

There were some positive changes made tonight–clearly the Superintendent and the School Committee were being receptive to feedback from parents.  The changes affect the proposals for the high schools–specifically, there will be no reduction in the maximum number of blocks a high school student can take, and the savings from changes in the PE requirements might be achieved differently.  But it’s not clear how.  I came out of tonight’s School Committee meeting more confused about the budget than when I went in.

It is clear that cuts will be made at the high schools–the budget still calls for a reduction of 13.9 FTEs from the high schools, and that didn’t change tonight.  But what these cuts mean to the high school students wasn’t specified, and probably won’t be known for a little while. I’m fine with the principals having the flexibility to respond to the students’ preferences, but I do hope that parents will get a chance to respond before everything is finalized and when the impact of the cuts is known.

Another example of incomplete information concerns fee increases.  The School Committee feels it can find an additional $40,000 from increasing the Use of School Building fees. I’ve heard them mention focusing on C permits–those for organizations either for-profit or from outside Newton. The budget also contains a $40 increase per student for transportation fees.   As I’ve written before, I feel that we need a full analysis of these fees followed by public discussion. Unfortunately, we’ve reached the point where a decision needs to be made without either of these happening.