I think the issue of class size is complicated–it’s not just about money. Over the years I’ve been involved in the schools, the problem has been a moving target, affecting some schools for a year or more, and then jumping to others in the next years. Adding teachers can solve the problem temporarily, until class size issues hit the next school.

If one were to add enough teachers to keep class sizes at the ideal level every year, we would run out of space in some schools. A few years ago, Bowen had the problem of getting a reasonable number of teachers for an endlessly growing student population, but not enough classrooms for them. Even after adding one modular, we still had two teachers sharing a classroom space. But the current plan to add extra capacity as schools are rebuilt/renovated to alleviate some of the potential space crunches in Newton’s future hasn’t received a lot of support.

Our community also values neighborhood schools, which also puts stress on class size. Margaret [Albright] suggests redistricting, but this is an extremely painful process–people volunteer neighborhoods other than their own to be moved to another school. To me, it’s not fair to redistrict unless you can at least “grandfather” in the current students and their families. This means that redistricting is not a short-term solution that can alleviate immediate class size problems.

I met with a Swampscott School Committee member and their superintendent last spring–they changed from neighborhood schools to a system where the school department added new families/students to schools that had capacity in the appropriate grades. This essentially did away with large class sizes across their three elementary schools. However, Swampscott is far smaller–both in terms of population and geography. Still, there might be some hybrid solution in Newton, if we are willing to be more flexible and feel that smaller class sizes are worthy of rethinking an established element of our school system.

These issues haven’t been discussed very much, partly because parents are often focused on their own school and don’t get a chance to see what is happening from a larger perspective. The idea of changing neighborhood schools is also a bit of a “third rail” in terms of discussions. It’s been far easier to figure out how to add a teacher or an aide rather than work on the underlying problems.

In terms of what to do right now, we should be looking carefully at the new model this year at Countryside and Peirce–instead of thinking about 1 teacher to 25 students, they are thinking of a whole grade with a team of teachers, aides, and other support staff. In the end, we are all concerned all about how well the school system meets our students’ educational needs–perhaps this new model can do this well and allow more flexible staffing.

In general, middle school parents are less engaged–either because they are “burnt out” from elementary school involvement or because their middle schoolers are trying to keep them at arm’s length. Programs like BRIM (Breaking Ranks in the Middle) are not well explained and parents can’t see the direct connection or benefit to the curriculum. Too often middle school is treated as something for the students to “get through” so that they can reach the wonderful high schools.

As a middle school parent and a School Committee candidate, I want three years where our increasingly independent children are challenged academically, are learning the 21^st century skills needed for future success, and are developing the social skills important for successful and enriching lives. We also want our children to have a memorable three years that maintains that excitement for education that was sparked at the elementary level and the positive connections with teachers who are engaged and challenged themselves.

So what can we do to support and enhance the middle schools? Parents can become more involved and knowledgeable and advocate for more attention TO the middle schools and FROM the middle schools. Let’s figure out what BRIM is about (and explain it to each new batch of middle school parents) and how it fits into the new Strategic Plan. Let’s do more pilot programs at the middle schools—especially those that build upon the strategic plan. Currently there are two classrooms that are piloting new technology, and that number is expected to grow. It would be great to see some surveying done of the faculty and the parents about their perceptions. Can we have more multidisciplinary courses and projects? These are just a few ideas to bring middle schools into the limelight.

One example to consider is the idea of expanded learning time (ELT).  I recently heard Chris Gabrieli, author of Time to Learn, talk about this subject, along with two staff people from a Framingham school with a longer school day.  It’s true that most of the schools that have an expanded day have very different concerns than we have here in Newton–issues like low graduation rates and low MCAS scores.  But Newton still does have challenges in the school system that might be addressed by having a longer school day.  It is worth exploring this idea and how it might be applied to a school in Newton.

It is important, though, when considering all these different ideas to be sure there is consensus in the particular school community among parents and staff to try a new program.  Additionally, resources needed for a pilot must not take away from those needed in other schools, and should be integrated into a long-range financial plan in order to ensure sustainability.

In my opinion, the School Committee needs to more fully explore the possibility of adding two modulars at Oak Hill next year, while still planning and designing for four.  If the student projections remain the same, the second set of modulars could be purchased next year instead.  This might not be the most efficient method of meeting Oak Hill’s space needs–the numbers need to be run and presented before a decision is made.  This could be a pragmatic way to move forward with much of the original CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) list, while still working to solve the space crunch in the system.

This is an extraordinarily difficult situation, though quite simple to explain:  there simply isn’t enough money to pay for the capital projects the School Committee would like to undertake this year.  This means that some projects need to be put on hold–the question is how to determine which ones.  Among the choices were:  roof improvements; new second boilers; new windows and doors at an elementary school; an elevator in an elementary school; and four new modulars for a middle school.

There was an extensive discussion that addressed many alternatives and needs.  The only area I would have like to see explored was the possibility of adding only two modulars at Oak Hill next year, followed by two the following year.  While this would not be the most cost-efficient method for design and construction, these inefficiencies might be offset by the ability to continue to move forward with other projects.  I’m not suggesting this is the way to go, but it is another alternative that could have been evaluated.

In the end, the argument that made the most sense to me was to focus on the items that would have a substantial impact on the educational program–the ones that would lead to significant impact on education if they weren’t done now.   To me, this includes the roofs, the elevator, and the modulars.  Clearly, a roof failure could mean a class or classes need to shut down or be moved until repair can be done.  This could also mean a substantial repair expense–far more than a proactive repair would cost today.  The elevator is a no-brainer–it not only means giving all students the ability to move easily around the school, but also it gives them dignity and self-sufficiency.

The Oak Hill modulars are necessary because in September, 2010, a large cohort of students begins entering the school, causing a space crunch.   Not enough space leads to large team sizes (predicted to be greater than 100 students) which will substantially affect students’ education.

I forsaw the Oak Hill space situation  several years ago when Bowen and other Oak Hill feeder schools were struggling with increases in student population.  However, without a comprehensive capital plan that includes both municipal and school needs, it is impossible to properly plan for and meet the capital needs and the associated financing necessary to avoid these difficult situations.

Unfortunately the current funding difficulties require placing the needs of one school over the needs of another, and in the end no decision satisfies everyone.

In reviewing all the interesting meetings I went to in the last half of June, I realized that I have spent a great deal of time thinking about my visit with Neil Bernstein, a School Committee member in Swampscott.   Neil has been the driving force in bringing long-range financial planning to Swampscott Public Schools (SPS), and is an avid ambassador for extending this to other school systems.

Two years ago, SPS had a year-to-year budget, just as Newton does now.   However, SPS did not have actual budget updates, accurate numbers, or a line item budget.   Newton, with a far larger budget, does have accurate and regular reporting on the budget, and is therefore starting off in a much better position to develop a long-range system.   It will still require a great deal of work, especially since Newton’s budget is so much larger.

One appealing aspect of the SPS system is its complete openness.  There is a line item in the on-line budget for each staff person, making any proposed cuts very visible and, in a sense, personal.   Everyone, including the parents, teachers, union representatives, and administrators can see exactly how much each person costs the system, and can determine how any increases (COLA and other contractual increases as well) will affect the school budget.

I’m sure that many of you have wondered like I have, if it is possible for someone to tell from Newton Public Schools’ proposed budget line items how much of a COLA increase is included in school budgets, especially during the years when a contract is still under negotiation.  It is such a complex figure–I haven’t been able to do it, but it is possible that someone might.  This year was unusual in that the Superintendent made clear that there were no increases for COLA in the FY2010 budget.

Budget openness in Newton that is similar to Swampscott’s, with a staff that includes about 1000 teachers, would lead to an incredibly cumbersome spreadsheet for the public (and the staff) to maneuver.  One issue, then, is how to bring a similar openness to Newton’s budget and still make it manageable and useful.  I think that this will be a work in progress over the next year.

First, I like the idea of a teacher survey that gets some in-depth information about professional development.   There may be differences among teachers about what method they find most useful; these could fall into categories by level of experience, subject area, elementary/secondary, etc. We can use this information to help determine what is the best combination of methods to provide effective professional development efficiently.  We might find that some changes need to be made in our current system that would be beneficial to all.

Second, I think we need to be sure there is accountability for early release days.  Since these days are written in the contract, we have every right to know what happens and how this learning helps our children.  Families make sacrifices to support the early release days (either time off from work, more after-school program expenses, etc.) and should feel assured that the time is well worth the extra effort.

As an example, one scenario involved reducing salary increases to 1.5% a year and reducing school staff by 3%, both changes each year for five years.   A 3% reduction means about 30 teachers laid off each year, for a total of 150 teachers over five years, out of about 1000 teachers and 1700 overall staff.

As I wrote previously, the numbers can inform our decision-making but cannot be the sole criteria.   We need to really delve into what these reductions would mean–what are the effects on class size?  on how we recruit and retain teachers, etc.?  How would education need to change with these reductions?  Are we willing to accept the consequences of such actions?

These are certainly difficult questions to consider, but we must address them as a community.  As the CAG presentation made clear, we as a community need to accept that there need to be changes–the current level of expectations and funding cannot continue.    And we need to elect leaders who are willing to address this situation.

The planning model is very similar to the work the CAG did in this area. One of the most interesting results is that the Swampscott Superintendent has a five-year budget strategy—a natural outcome of a long-range financial planning document. This makes far more sense than the annual budget guidelines that our School Committee develops—which can be very different from year to year and not provide sustainable support for important programs.

The other interesting item is that even though there are 5 School Committee members in Swmapscott, there is a Finance Committee. As far as I know, there is no such sub-committee of the Newton School Committee. While it seems to me that all the SC members share the responsibility for keeping within the annual budget, I think a Finance Committee could be very helpful in designing, evaluating, and presenting a long-range financial plan. This could become a very important element in moving forward, especially if there is no agreement on hiring a Chief Financial Officer until a permanent Superintendent is in place.