Sue Flicop

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.

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

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.

From the Mayor: Regarding the federal stimulus money, no one knows the amounts or restrictions that will be placed on the money yet. There will be some money given to the states for them to decide.

At the state level, there will be some clarity when the House budget is released sometime in April. There are three changes being discussed: a change in the meals tax (either a statewide tax or an option for local governments to tax); a tax on telecommunications that haven’t been previously taxed; and an easing of the requirements for communities to join the GIC (Group Insurance Commission) that could reduce healthcare costs for local governments.

Here in Newton, the Mayor hopes to return to the School Committee for FY10 money that they turned back to the city in FY08. This would be a one-time increase based on prior savings in healthcare and other cuts in the budget, and is still not certain enough to include in the budget. The City could still see some cuts in the FY09 budget—the State is facing a $1 billion shortfall and could still cut more local aid to cities and towns.

High Schools (continued from last week): The Superintendent recommended that the cap in the number of blocks students could take (to go from 28 to 26 blocks) be removed for FY10. While the budget would still include a decrease of 2 FTEs, the decrease would be done at the discretion of the principal.

Regarding the minimum number of students to hold a class, the recommendation is to use the following guidelines:

• Honors and Curriculum I: minimum of 20 students
• Curriculum II: minimum of 16 students
• Electives: minimum of 20 students

NOTE: These are intended to be guidelines, not policy. This would allow the principals to be flexible, especially with certain music classes, SPED classes, and those that are very close to the limit).

PE/Wellness Changes: The PE/Wellness staff will be meeting with the Superintendent this week to discuss ideas of how to still cut $156,000 from PE/Wellness, but in a different way than reducing the number of required semesters of study.

Overall, there will still be 13.9 FTEs cut from the high schools, but they might be arrived at differently than has been discussed. This would result from increased flexibility given to the principals.

The cut of a full-time (1 FTE) guidance counselor was done in error. The projected decrease in enrollment at the high schools means a loss of .5FTE instead. This will be corrected in the budget proposal.

Regarding the equity of the cuts across the school system, when the enrollment numbers are taken into account, the cuts at the elementary level amount to .2%; the middle schools to .4%; and the high schools to .4% as well. More analysis of these numbers will be done to include the past 3 to 4 years. The main concern regarding the high schools is that NSHS enrollment has been fairly consistently underprojected, and has therefore experienced a greater percentage of the high school cuts. Over both schools, the cap on the number of students in English classes and the restrictions based on equipment in some disciplines means that the increases in class size are confined to the other subject areas. Looking at the average class size at the high schools doesn’t tell the whole story.

Math Coaches: The support for the math program takes a two-pronged approach: first there are the instructional materials and systemwide professional development from the curriculum coordinator. Second, there are the math coaches who help put the materials and new ideas into practice and help support their implementation in the classroom on a daily basis. The results at Countryside Elementary were discussed.

The ability/need to build assessments into new programs was also discussed, with a reference to how federal grants programs are assessed. The Superintendent explained that there are three parts to these grants: implementation; monitoring (which focuses on whether the school system is doing what it said it would); and evaluation. The evaluations are not expected within a year, as proper analysis takes longer. Additionally, there are often funds in federal grants to hire people for the assessment process, which can be very time consuming—especially with young children.

Straw Vote: Each School Committee member explained their areas of concern and support regarding the FY10 budget. Many expressed approval at the creative ideas and programs that were being proposed. There was a fair amount of discussion among most of the members regarding several issues:

• Cuts at the high school
• Use of 2- or 3-person teams at the middle schools
• Elementary classes that have experienced large sizes for several years in a row
• Consideration of adding fees to offset cuts

Some specific concerns/ideas expressed include:

• Teacher burnout due to consistently large class sizes over the past few years (Claire)
• Need to add a COO/CFO/Chief of Administration Services to find efficiencies and save money (Kurt)
• Concern about the effectiveness of Northeastern University co-op students (Geoff)
• Concern about cuts to PE/Wellness being driven by budgetary pressure, not by educational need (Marc)
• Concern that the increased bus fee has not been discussed with any context (Marc)

Maintenance: The FY10 Budget includes the purchase of a preventative maintenance program for $50,000. This program builds upon the software currently used, and will allow NPS staff to enter info on1700 pieces of equipment at NSHS. The bulk of the expense is for preventative maintenance work. Less than $10,000 is for the actual software. As ESCO projects happen in the school buildings, the equipment is expected to be included in this new program. The goal is to have info on all the mechanical equipment in all the buildings as part of the preventative maintenance program, but this may take a few years.

The budget also increases charter maintenance by $300,000. This amount reflects a more accurate amount that NPS spends on charter maintenance. It is not expected to lead to a significant reduction in the backlog of projects.

Food Services: The budget calls for a reduction of 73 lunch attendants in the elementary schools as a way to reduce the costs associated with school lunch. The information in the budget book did not mean to imply that students would be eating in the hallways. The principals and staff are currently trying to determine the best way to handle lunchtime in each school. Those schools with cafeterias or lunch space will have an easier time finding a solution. In other schools, there is an effort to find some new space specifically for lunch. How recess is handled is still being determined.

These cuts are particularly difficult since many of the lunch attendants are long-term staff members. Many have gone through social competency and anti-bullying training in order to handle difficult situations that may arise during lunch and recess.

USB (Use of School Building) Fees: USB fees were last raised 3 years ago. Members of the SC agreed that these should be reviewed each year in order to charge a fair fee. The SC discussed the goal of increasing fees to earn an additional $40,000. More info and analysis will be done, leading to a recommendation on this fee.

Curriculum and Instruction: There are two proposed increases in professional development:

1. OAT (Observing and Analyzing Teaching) Course: This course has been offered in the past to improve supervision. The format includes reading current research, analysis, role plays and on-site practice. This program was not given last year, since there were only a few people who would be eligible. With new principals this year and a new observation instrument, there will be a full class that will meet every other week for a total of 36 hours over the school year.
2. Creating Authentic Assessments: This includes sending a contingent of NPS staff to certain conferences regarding 21st century skills and professional learning communities, and the purchase of materials. These staff members would then bring this information back to NPS and develop plans to apply their knowledge in Newton.

There was a discussion about using technology to aid in teachers’ professional development. This has started in Newton in two ways:

1. Using a moodle, staff can share their ideas for teaching new curriculum. This process has improved over time. For example, face-to-face time was found to be important early in the process, with an increase in online communications after the participating staff got to know each other better.
2. Online courses are being developed in-house or in conjunction with other communities so that they are tailored to the needs of our community.

Regarding assessment of teachers, the principals and department heads try to keep strong teachers and help them improve their practice through evaluations. Principals follow a procedure that includes 3 formal observations a year (which include observations, summary and recommendations) in addition to informal observations for all new teachers during their first three years. Once teachers attain professional teacher status, they begin a cycle that includes observations every other year. The focus is on whether or not (and what) the student is learning—not on what is being taught. There are lots of supports for teachers to help them improve, including literacy specialists and math coaches.

One element of the Strategic Plan is a 360-degree evaluation process. This is already beginning in some schools, as teachers and parents are being included in reviews. The SC called for adding a presentation on reviews and evaluations at a SC meeting later in the year.

School Committee, Central Staff and Human Resources: These areas were briefly addressed. The main issues that arose included the idea of adding a Chief Financial Officer and why there have been some sizable jumps in costs in certain areas (i.e. supplies and printing). These areas will be addressed on Monday.

Business, Finance, and Planning: Would adding another staff person in the Grants Office increase the amount of money NPS receives? With the amount, timing and requirements of any stimulus money unknown, this is difficult to answer. This area will also be addressed on Monday.

Transportation: The FY10 budget calls for an increase of $40 per child in transportation fees. The additional fee is not expected to significantly impact the number of passes purchased. Some members of the SC called for increased checking of passes if the fee increases. These fees are still under review by the Fees Subcommittee of the SC.

There is a question about whether or not NPS can stop providing transportation to Newton students who attend private schools in Newton. This is a matter of law—recently the city lawyers have weighed in, but this will be confirmed.

Next Meeting: On Monday night, the SC is expected to continue discussion in the following areas: math coaches; changes at the high schools level, including changes in the PE requirements, the change in maximum number of blocks, and the proposed cut-off number for under-enrolled courses; Special Education; the addition of a CFO and new Grants positions. This will be followed by a straw vote, where each SC members give an idea of how they will vote and what changes they would hope to see.

School Committee Budget Meeting
March 9, 2009

Continuation of High School Discussion:
The discussion centered on reducing the number of blocks that high school students take to 26 from 28 per semester, and the “unintended consequences” regarding certain classes. One example was the potential reduction in the number of students taking orchestra due to the restrictions—however, this decrease would not lead to FTE reductions and cost savings. The Central Staff and principals are aware of this problem, and expect to make exceptions in certain cases.

Regarding setting a bottom limit on the number of students in a class, this number is expected to be a guideline for principals to help them make decisions about which classes to cut. One of the tradeoffs if this limit is not increased is an increase in class sizes.

The proposed change in PE requirements is within the state law. Newton needs to offer PE every year, but can allow students to fulfill their requirements in a variety of ways if the School Committee policy allows it.

Other high school issues raised include:

• • Re-evaluation of enrollment projections in light of new financial reality and potential increase in the number of private school students entering public school
• • Effect of current uncertainty as students are now choosing classes for next year
• • Possibility of using “remote collaboration” through technology to offer classes at both North and South even if the individual numbers are low
• • Amount of supplies available in high schools
• • Effect on “programmatic integrity” as certain classes are cut due to low enrollment

Technology:
The addition of a Program Evaluation Specialist would enable the district to use effectively the “data warehouse” set up by the State. The Program Evaluation Specialist would create of a process for staff to design and gather data and assessments to inform classroom instruction and perform analyses about current programs. The Instructional Technology Specialist for Online Learning would focus on online course development. Online learning would focus on teacher professional development as well as offering curriculum extension at the secondary level to improve the home-school connection. This new position would allow the current Web Facilitator to implement a content management system to manage the thousands of webpages in the NPS web site. [Currently, both jobs are done by one person.] These new positions are important to help keep the system “fresh” and to properly maintain what we have.

Student Services:
There are two program expansions proposed: the Elementary Stabilization Program (ESP) and a 4th grade integrated program at Memorial-Spaulding. Both extensions would keep students in Newton, provide them with the services they need, and be cost-effective. Current out-of-district placement costs have increased by 8% and are not under the control of NPS. In contrast, the expected in-house costs are far less, even when accounting for transportation costs.

A new alternative high school is proposed. This is a program that would serve high school students with a wide range of disabilities who would otherwise be sent out-of-district. The program would take place in a separate facility, as these are students who would have difficulty re-entering a large school. As with the two program extensions, this program has the benefit of serving the needs of students while being cost-effective.

Reductions in elementary SPED aides are a cause for concern, but have been looked at carefully. The cuts are basically one per school.

ELL:
The ELL population has stabilized, and the program is level-funded from last year. Part of the funding is used to train classroom teachers to work with ELL students, meeting State requirements to place children with these teachers.

Career & Tech Ed:
State regulations define this program, limiting some classes to 15 students for safety reasons. The director will be looking at classes and programs where the enrollment numbers are low. It is difficult to add new areas of study due to cuts. Areas to be looked at in the future are law enforcement, biotechnology, and allied health industries.

Collaboration between math and voc-tech have occurred, but have been limited by lack of common planning time. Past planning work has been done over the summer through grant programs.

The Student Services section of the FY10 proposed school budget has a number of interesting proposals.  For several years I’ve heard that it would be less expensive to serve “in-house”  many of our students who are currently placed out-of-district due to special needs.  These savings would arise because the costs are more controllable when Newton provides the services.  Currently, NPS is told how much it needs to pay to send students to certain day or residential programs–there is no room for adjustment or negotiation.  For FY10, the costs of these programs will increase 8% from FY09.

The proposals we heard last night also add the essential element of meeting these students’ needs in a thorough, thoughtful, and supportive way.   This is truly a win-win situation–the students will be well-served (maybe even better-served since they can remain closer to home) and NPS will see significant cost savings.

Just a few preliminary thoughts right after tonight’s budget presentation…

First, a very big thanks to Jeff Young, members of the Central Staff, and all 21 school principals for accepting a wage freeze for FY10.  This is a wonderful symbol of their commitment to public education here in Newton as well as a significant sacrifice at a time when many families are worried and struggling to make ends meet.

Second, I had expected far more cuts in the budget this year, and agree with Jeff Young that this is primarily due to a big assumption in the budget of a COLA freeze for all NPS employees.  Without this freeze, NPS would be in a far worse situation.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed…

Third, I am pleased to see some movement in the budget regarding elements of the strategic plan.  Some of these ideas, such as reaching out to local colleges and universities, benefit our students and NPS by providing expertise to our school system at a bargain rate.  We also get the chance to see future teachers/staff in action, which can help determine if they should receive an offer to stay in Newton.

I have some personal experience in this, as I graduated from the Co-op MBA Program at Northeastern.  I worked in a financial services company performing cost/benefit analyses for six months.  I know how valuable that experience was for me, and I was clearly aware that I was being evaluated regarding a future position at that company.

As it the budget stands now, we still are facing cuts in staff, increased class size, reductions in programming, etc.  It  is a very complex document, and I plan on pouring over it this weekend.   I expect to post on this blog after each budget meeting, if not more often during the whole process.