Sue Flicop

I think we need to be careful when talking about the “right” number for the size of an elementary school. Neighborhood schools are a highly valued aspect of the Newton school system. If we want to keep this as a foundation, and keep in mind the trauma to schools, families, and neighborhoods caused by redistricting, we need to be flexible regarding the best size for each individual elementary school. As neighborhood student populations rise and fall, we need to be able to accommodate everyone.

As an example, Bowen Elementary School, where my children go to school, has grown from approximately 330 students when my oldest daughter was in 1st grade in 2002, to about 440 students this year. Physically, the school could not handle the larger number of students in recent years—in response to this problem, Bowen added a modular and got creative with what it already had. No one wanted to send their child to another school or redistrict families on the borders of the district—nor could the latter be done quickly enough without a huge amount of upheaval.

This is a scenario that plays out across the city in different schools in different years. It is not a problem that goes away— it just jumps from one place to another. The only way to be prepared for such times is to add enough extra capacity in the schools as we rebuild or renovate. We can talk about how much excess capacity is “right” (and perhaps that number is different for each community), but it is important to recognize that flexibility needs to be a key characteristic when determining the size of the schools.

To me, the real issue is not the final size of the school—it’s having the resources to meet the needs of all the kids in the school. A school of 500 students can provide an equally excellent education as a school of 250 students if there are the extra resources to support the larger number—more supervisory staff and education support, for example. But one principal (without vice-principals) or one literacy specialist for each school—no matter what the size—creates a different experience for the children. We need to find the resources to fix this problem.

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.

Special School Committee Budget Meeting
April 28, 2009

The School Committee voted to accept the proposed budget (8 to 1) after the discussion and changes below regarding the budget updates of April 27th and April 28th.

Using the April 27th update (click here for a copy: April 27 Budget Update), the meeting went as follows:
Part IA (Items moved from the March proposed budget to the IDEA grant): SC reached consensus with no discussion.

Part IB (New programs/items covered by the IDEA grant): The only discussion was about the creation of the Post Secondary Transition Program to assist students ages 18 – 22. It focused on whether the School Committee (SC) wanted to add a new program that might not be sustainable beyond the two years of the IDEA grant. In the end the SC decided to keep the new program for a variety of reasons, including the idea that at least there would be a structure set up for the future; that a program like this is part of a new mandate; and that Newton still has a responsibility to these students until they are 22.

Part II (Additions to FY10 Budget): There was a great deal of discussion about the balance between the addition of new staff positions and the purchase of “stuff,” which included science and music equipment, as well as textbooks and an increase in the per pupil allocation. In the end, there was a majority in favor of keeping the balance as proposed.

Part III (Reserve Funds): There were two options presented tonight (neither are up on the website yet) regarding $750K to be kept in reserve until State funding is finalized. The reason behind the reserve fund are the potential cuts to the circuit breaker, which funds extraordinary expenses related to children with special needs. Each option represents line items that will not be allocated until enough funding is secure. Option A is heavier on the “stuff” side—including $215K for a feasibility study for work at Angier, Carr, and Cabot, and $97K to be held in reserve for additional special education expenses. Option B is heavier on the FTE side, where funding for 5 teachers would be held in reserve.

Discussion centered on whether or not to include the feasibility study and whether or not to keep the $97K for special education reserve. Most of the SC members felt comfortable keeping the feasibility study, but opted to shift the $97K from special education reserve to equipment reserve, which could cover a variety of needs in science, music and textbooks.

Post-Vote: Geoff Epstein, who voted against the budget, said that he voted as he did because the feasibility study was added into the budget process at the end.  Other SC members felt that it was fine to add in budget items during the process if they felt they were missing. In addition, the SC has been waiting for funding for the study since last year.

This budget will be presented to the Board of Aldermen tomorrow (Wednesday) night, at approximately 8:30 p.m.

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.

I’ve just read these interesting articles about measuring and evaluating public education:  Rothstein: \”What\’s Wrong with Accountability by the Numbers?\” In my mind, MCAS would fit the authors’ idea of an appropriate test that covers a variety of skills (e.g. not just computation, but also critical thinking; not just ELA and math, but also science and—in the future—history). In this way, I think Massachusetts is ahead of the curve.

The authors feel that any test, though, needs to be used in combination with more qualitative assessments based on what our goals are regarding public education. I think this is a key factor—we in Newton need arrive at some consensus about what our values and goals are for Newton students. The authors propose having a corps of professional school inspectors to evaluate and judge what is happening at each school. Not sure I agree with this proposal for Newton, but it does lead to other ideas and hybrid solutions.

I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this in the months to come…wholesale importation of the business model—that of measuring, evaluating, and decision-making based solely on numbers—makes me very uncomfortable in the public education area.

I’m going to attach these meeting notes, since they are two pages long.  One disclaimer:  I didn’t have the list of numbers that the Mayor and School Committee used in their discussion and think that the $275Kin health care savings is the wrong number–I think it’s more like just under $500K.  The TAB has the latter number, but I’m still not 100% clear how it was calculated…so look for a revised version soon, but in the meantime here are my notes.

SC Meeting Notes 4-15-09

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.

In School Committee meetings, group meetings with parents, and individual conversations, I hear some parents express dissatisfaction with the math curriculum. At the same time others are quite impressed with the work their children are doing. I expect we can all agree that no single math curriculum is going to meet the needs of each and every child in NPS. As a parent of three children, I see for myself that each of my children has a different way of learning and understanding the theory and mechanics of math. So what do we do about the math curriculum, then?

NPS has invested quite a lot of resources into both Everyday Math (at the elementary schools) and Impact Math (at the middle schools)—both in terms of instructional material purchases and professional development and support. However, we can’t let this fact outweigh a real need for change—we need a thorough analysis that measures the effectiveness of the program and identifies specific curriculum problems or issues that could be solved with a different curriculum. In other words, we don’t want to trade in one set of problems for another without fully understanding what the implications are for our children.

We also need to determine whether issues with Everyday and Impact Math have to do with their implementation—a result of teacher training, professional development and support, or adequacy of instructional materials. For example, if a teacher does not feel fully comfortable with Everyday Math, it would be difficult for that person to adjust or tweak certain elements to help a child who is having difficulty with some concepts. A teacher who is fully conversant in the topic and the instructional materials would feel more able and confident to adjust the program to meet the needs of individual children. So here is a problem that could be solved with more professional development and/or support, and might be made worse by bringing in a new curriculum.

At the beginning of the strategic planning process, we asked the teachers to fill out a survey about the strengths and weaknesses of NPS. A frequent comment was that it is difficult for teachers when a new curriculum or initiative is started, requiring substantial investment in time and learning on the teacher’s part, and then dropped later or replaced with something different. This is another element in the equation for parents to understand.

School Committee members should be concerned when they hear consistent and persistent complaints about any part of the curriculum, and direct the Superintendent to conduct a thorough review.