Present: Julie Dobrow (Chair), Sandy Hessler (Vice-Chair), Laurie Manos, Sharon Antia, Al Schmertzler, Leta Allen (Boston Representative), Deneen Trask (Hanscom Representative).
Also present: Mickey Brandmeyer (Superintendent), Paul Naso (Assistant Superintendent), Buckner Creel (Administrator for Business and Finance).
The School Committee was asked to accept the donation of $1,200.00 from Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation to the Lincoln School to be used to purchase materials to beautify its courtyard area.
The School Committee was asked to accept a donation from the Lincoln PTA to the Lincoln School Library Fund in recognition of Judy Glassman’s retirement. Mr. Brandmeyer said that the amount of the donation, $600.00 in the documentation, was now $685.00. He said that it was expected that the total amount of the PTA gifts to the Lincoln School Library Fund in recognition of Judy Glassman’s retirement would increase.
Mr. Brandmeyer said tonight two work plans would be presented: (1) teacher excellence and professional development, and (2) facilities, operations, health and safety. Mr. Brandmeyer presented the first work plan under teacher excellence and professional development, which encompasses personnel matters in four areas: recruiting and developing administrative leadership (multi-year succession plan being developed); developing a personnel manual; renewing efforts to recruit diverse faculty and staff; and analyzing staffing needs.
Ms. Manos said that under the new format the School Committee’s role is incorporated into the District goals. She said that the superintendent performance review process should be included somewhere. Ms. Hessler said that is included under negotiating Mr. Brandmeyer’s contract. Ms. Manos also said that the policy manual updates that the School Committee is doing should be included somewhere and asked where they should go. Ms. Manos also asked whether the administration is happy with the review process for administrators. Mr. Brandmeyer said that he is. Mr. Naso noted that this has been listed for consideration in 2007-2008.
Ms. Dobrow asked about the renewed efforts to recruit and retain diverse staff and faculty. Mr. Brandmeyer said the District has been using goal oriented hiring processes such as advertising to reach people of color and fair and equitable hiring processes. Unfortunately, this has not led to a lot of minority hiring because of a lack of minority candidates and competition among schools to hire them. Minority candidates often apply for jobs in more urban areas where there are more teachers of color. The District has been attending minority recruitment fairs but has often been placed next to larger districts which are hiring in greater numbers and which sometimes make offers on the spot. The District is looking to find the right balance between procedures for a fair and authentic process and procedures that support attracting minority applicants. Ms. Allen offered the help of METCO parents.
Ms. Dobrow asked whether it might be possible to partner with other districts to develop affinity groups that could make for more of the peer coalitions larger urban districts have. Mr. Brandmeyer said that there are opportunities through EDCO and EMI. EDCO, a collaborative of 30-31 districts, is sponsoring a minority recruitment fair this year and is looking to support minority recruitment and retention. EMI has affinity groups. Mr. Schmertzler suggested it might be productive to work with other school districts in smaller numbers than the full EDCO membership in recruiting. Ms. Hessler suggested looking at enrollment projections to analyze how staffing needs might change.
Mr. Naso presented the work plan on evaluation of faculty and staff. He said implementation of the Teacher Evaluation Program is a continuing effort. This summer it was important to orient the new principals about the performance standards. The District is continuing to work with Dr. Tripp, a consultant, on evaluation of faculty and staff. Ms. Hessler suggested that a sentence be added to the Role of the School Committee under this work plan which says that the School District will be looking at the process for evaluating the Superintendent’s performance this year. She will craft suggested language to be added.
Mr. Naso presented the work plan on the professional development program describing work in five areas: professional development programs for paraprofessionals; technology integration projects; teacher mentor projects with expansion to include administrators; reinforcement of common understanding of standards-based instruction and assessment; and investigation of further professional development collaborations with other districts and educational organizations.
Ms. Trask asked about evaluation for long-term subs. Mr. Naso explained that the District has very few long-term subs and that there is a careful process in hiring them. The long-term substitute teachers can avail themselves of many of the same professional development opportunities as teachers but they cannot receive tuition reimbursement. They are supervised by the principals but they do not take part in the evaluation program.
Ms. Dobrow asked about plans for this year’s Institute Day. Mr. Naso said technology integration projects in math, science, and humanities will be considered with pilot groups presenting. Other plans are still being developed.
Mr. Creel presented the work plan on budgets and contracts describing work in four areas: developing the FY08 budget; procuring funds for technology plan implementation on the Lincoln and Hanscom campuses; implementing FY07 Hanscom operational plans; and responding to the Hanscom contract solicitation.
Mr. Schmertzler asked about the proposal development process. Mr. Brandmeyer said the last contract was a sole source solicitation. Mr. Brandmeyer said that the last proposal had three parts: a description of how the District would run the school, a portion describing how the District would deal with certain federal requirements, and price. Separate federal teams evaluated portions of the proposal with one looking at how the District would meet their needs and a second considering price. The process this time will probably be similar. DODES knows that the District needs to know prior to April 1, 2007 whether they will be running the Hanscom schools next year because of requirements in the teachers’ contract and they have been responsive to this.
Mr. Schmertzler asked about his role as a member of the Subcommittee responsible for responding to the Hanscom contract solicitation. Mr. Brandmeyer said the Subcommittee would respond to the solicitation. This is not a public process because it is a competitive process. Mr. Brandmeyer said he will meet with Mr. Schmertzler and Ms. Trask before DODES visits Hanscom on October 23 and run through the process. Ms. Manos suggested the work plan should be amended to reflect that there is a Subcommittee to respond to the solicitation which includes School Committee members.
Mr. Creel presented the work plan on facilities and operations describing work in four areas: master plan development for facilities; evaluation of food service operations; implementation of recommendations for telephone system, technology infrastructure and student information management systems; and energy consumption and conservation. Mr. Creel said contracting out food services is on hold depending on an evaluation of how the new food services Director’s plans are working out. Mr. Creel said he has secured a price for gas supply for next year with an opportunity to extend the contract for a second year. This will provide protection against spikes in the gas price but it will not protect against increased energy consumption if temperatures are colder than usual. This was secured through the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority (HEFA). There may also be an opportunity to secure electricity pricing from HEFA.
Mr. Schmertzler said when he and Ms. Dobrow met with the Selectmen they asked the School Committee to address the issue of preventative maintenance at the State of the Town. Mr. Schmertzler offered to work with Mr. Creel and Robert Zakarian on making a statement about predictive preventative maintenance.
Mr. Creel presented the work plan on health and safety describing work in four areas: emergency planning processes and procedures; pandemic flu planning and procedures; implementation of wellness policy; and revision and implementation of the health services manual. Mr. Creel said emergency planning is an ongoing process in Lincoln. A scenario based planning exercise will be held in May.
Mr. Schmertzler asked whether there are new information or efforts underway to create a second means of emergency egress to the Lincoln School. Mr. Brandmeyer said the Local Emergency Preparedness Committee (LEPC) feels the need for this and the Conservation Commission may be open to use of an existing way. This is important because if Lincoln Road is shut down the school becomes isolated. LEPC will issue a report with options and understands that this must get done. Mr. Schmertzler emphasized that it is imperative that the Town proceed on this with urgency as there is a real possibility of serious emergency and students and faculty could be trapped on the campus. This also limits the schools’ usefulness as an emergency facility for the Town. Mr. Brandmeyer said the School Committee and the Selectmen can play a role in getting traction.
Ms. Manos asked about parent awareness of the wellness policy. She said there is need to update room parents on the implications of the new policy. Mr. Naso said that the principals have been informed about the necessary immediate actions. Several School Committee members reported anecdotally that they had heard about issues relating to the policy from their children’s teachers at Open House.
Ms. Dobrow moved that the School Committee accept the work plans on teacher excellence and professional development and on facilities, operations, and safety as amended. Ms. Antia seconded the motion. All elected members voted in favor with Ms. Allen and Ms. Trask concurring.
Mr. Naso presented the report on the revised teacher evaluation program which was approved in the contract with the Lincoln Teachers Association and which has completed its first year of operation. Mr. Naso reported three pieces of good news. First, there is evidence that the District has lived the idea that having a document setting forth the teacher evaluation program is not sufficient. The District has paid attention to how this document is used, has worked with evaluators to achieve consistency, and has worked with teachers on expectations. Second, a survey of teachers on their experience of the evaluation process shows that the revised program has been well received by teachers. Third, the District is beginning to see the effects of this effort in classrooms and in student learning. Mr. Naso said the three new principals were brought up to speed on the performance standards.
Ms. Manos asked about whether student assessment data (MCAS results and pre and post unit assessments) have a role in teacher evaluation. Mr. Naso said the role of the evaluators focuses more on planning. Assessment data is useful for teachers to know what students need to learn. Ms. Manos asked whether in Lincoln MCAS results are used to evaluate teachers. Mr. Naso and Mr. Brandmeyer said it is not. Ms. Antia asked about relationship of student performance to teachers’ evaluations. Mr. Naso said how students are doing is part of the conversation with teachers but evaluations are not based on students attaining certain marks or scores.
Mr. Brandmeyer explained that teacher evaluation is a complex process and teachers are responsible to see that students make progress. The evaluator reviews the teacher’s plans to teach, asks how the teacher plans to get students to where they need to be, and asks how we will know if students have progressed.
Ms. Antia asked what would happen if, on a common assessment for fourth grade math, three out of four classes were achieving and one was not. Mr. Naso said it would be more typical for some students in each of the classes to not be achieving. He said he would look at whether students have made progress. Ms. Manos asked what happens, if a teacher is not performing. Mr. Naso said there is a provision in the teacher evaluation plan which provides for a teacher improvement plan with evaluator and peer support.
Ms. Dobrow asked about the survey comment that the “process seems to be less effective with support professionals as evaluators are not knowledgeable about practice discipline.” Mr. Naso said for occupational therapists and physical therapists sometimes the evaluators, not being of that discipline, are not in a position to give feedback relative to that specialty. He said the District does not way to have special standards for each specialization. The District is endeavoring to facilitate the process by finding the right match between the evaluator and evaluatee attempting to find the evaluator with the most expertise in a given area.
Mr. Brandmeyer said each year as the budget process begins he brings before the School Committee a set of issues to consider in setting their guidelines for the administration in developing the budget. The memorandum sets forth considerations in creating the FY08 budget and sets forth thirteen concepts which could become guidelines for the development of the school budget. Mr. Brandmeyer asked the School Committee to share the issues that they would like the administration to consider the most in constructing the budget.
Mr. Schmertzler asked about the adjustment to the budget process providing a lump sum allowance to principals and teachers permitting them to make more specific plans for expenditures in the spring. Mr. Creel said for consumables (about 5% of the District budget), most school districts have guidelines for per pupil costs at certain grades rather than having each teacher provide a list of the exact supplies that they want. In the spring the faculty will figure out how this money will be spent in consultation with principals.
Ms. Manos said she is troubled that in the middle school it is difficult to adjust the average class sizes so that they are closer to the target class sizes. Currently they are below target. Current middle school classes range from 15 to 20 with target class at 22 and maximum at 24. Mr. Brandmeyer said this is a result of the middle school model which has teams of content specialists for each grade. He said he is trying not to have a yo-yo effect of hiring and laying off teachers form year to year. When there is a smaller cohort allowing for three classes instead of four in a grade, the specialists will teach three classes and provide support services instead of teaching a fourth class. This year the numbers were too large to go to three classes for any middle school grade.
Mr. Brandmeyer noted that the Hanscom Middle School has a departmental model with content specialists teaching multiple grades. There are about five teachers teaching four content areas for the Hanscom seventh and eighth grades. Ms. Hessler suggested that if projections were for smaller class sizes for a period of years, then the District could consider a modification in the middle school staffing model for the Lincoln School. Mr. Brandmeyer said the projections would need to be for fewer than fifty students in a cohort for multiple years in a row. Mr. Creel said if the Deaconess senior housing project goes forward in the next five years there may be older people selling their homes and moving into the Deaconess and people with young children moving into their homes which could result in increased enrollment.
Ms. Dobrow said two of the issues raised in the memorandum, number 2 (maintain small class sizes) and number 11 (develop analysis of FTE allocations and staffing needs) are relevant to this discussion of the middle school class sizes. She suggested that the administration look at staff needs by discipline.
Ms. Dobrow said the numbers in Spanish classes are going up because there is more demand for Spanish than French. Mr. Naso said Spanish classes are at target class size and he believes everyone who wanted to take Spanish has been accommodated. Ms. Dobrow said staffing could be reduced by having a staff member who teaches both Spanish and French. Mr. Brandmeyer said if both Spanish and French are offered, there need to be smaller class sizes for the less desired language. Ms. Dobrow suggested looking at language enrollment numbers and trends and what that implies for staffing. Mr. Brandmeyer commented that this is really a programmatic question of whether the School Committee wants the administration to maintain programs as they are. Ms. Manos asked whether there is another language option which would be more popular than French.
Ms. Hessler said across the board if there are areas which are less well attended the administration may want to look at them. Mr. Brandmeyer said this is consistent with issue number 11, “[d]evelop analysis for FTE allocations and staffing needs for existing programs and deploy resources as necessary.” Ms. Manos suggested amending this by adding “in line with projected enrollment.”
Ms. Dobrow raised the issue of the extent to which maintenance money should be factored into the base budget. Mr. Brandmeyer said issue number 10, “[c]onsider historical spending patterns and current facilities assessments to develop maintenance budgets” is relevant here. He said the administration could try to put money into the budget for some ongoing maintenance and repairs with the knowledge that these numbers may need to be reduced because of choices between program, maintenance, staffing and fees.
Ms. Hessler suggested this question could be tabled until after the Capital Planning Committee (CPC) meets. Mr. Schmertzler said the CPC can consider whether maintenance should be in the operational or capital budget. Mr. Schmertzler said the Town should clump major repairs together and pay for them with a bond which is paid over a period of time. To do this they should be in a capital plan.
John Robinson raised the question of where to draw the line between maintenance and utilities, noting that if it is a warm winter, money allocated for fuel could be left at year end which could then be spent on maintenance. Mr. Brandmeyer said last year some end of year money was used for maintenance and some was used for programmatic spending.
Ms. Hessler said the thirteen points set forth in the memorandum are consistent with School Committee guidelines in recent years and the list is comprehensive. Ms. Dobrow asked whether it should be prioritized. Mr. Brandmeyer said prioritization is not as important as which guidelines to have.
Ms. Dobrow moved that the School Committee vote to establish the thirteen points as guidelines. Ms. Manos seconded the motion. All elected members voted in favor, with Ms. Allen and Ms. Trask concurring.
Ms. Manos updated the Committee on the current status of the Policy Subcommittee and discussed its priorities for 2006-2007. Ms. Manos recommended temporarily suspending going through the policy book section by section and recommended devoting effort to organizing the manual. She recommended developing a table of contents for each section which includes only policies Lincoln actually has. Mr. Brandmeyer said the policy manual currently has additional documents which are not policy and these will be removed. Ms. Manos said up to date codes can be downloaded from the National School Boards Association website. She and Richard Jewett intend to code all policies with the latest codes.
Ms. Manos said she has reviewed the warrants and they appear to be in order. She moved that the School Committee vote warrants in the amount of $560,188.68. Ms. Hessler seconded the motion. All elected members voted in favor, with Ms. Allen and Ms. Trask concurring.
Mr. Brandmeyer said these are the administration’s recommendations to the School Committee for capital projects. If approved by the School Committee, the requests will then be submitted to the CPC for consideration.
Mr. Creel presented the proposals relating to facilities upgrade and repair. He presented a five year plan which he said could be impacted by the master plan being developed for facilities but that projects recommended for years one and two would be less impacted by the plan. In year one, recommendations are for $75,000 for classroom rehabilitation—preventative maintenance program, $14,400 for exterior door emergence exit hardware replacement, $114,500 for Hartwell building improvement, $65,000 for Reed Field House repairs, $20,000 for Brooks Auditorium renovations – phase 1, and $5,000 for campus tree maintenance program.
Mr. Schmertzler suggested it would be prudent to wait until SMMA’s report on the master plan comes before making these recommendations. Mr. Creel replied there would be a two year planning process before work is done under the master plan and that work which won’t be eliminated by the master plan should proceed.
Mr. Schmertzler asked which parts of the recommendations are emergency needs. Mr. Creel said the field house repairs go into the emergency category and the exit hardware replacement should be undertaken for ADA compliance. Mr. Schmertzler said if the hardware is replaced it may still be necessary to replace the doors because they are too small and will not be ADA complaint under the ADA standards after a 25 percent of the school has been renovated. Mr. Brandmeyer said hardware could be purchased that could be reused. Mr. Brandmeyer said a significant portion of the doors needing new hardware are non-functional and need repair so that there is a second form of egress out of classrooms.
Ms. Hessler commented that the recommended request is more than projected last year and wondered whether it should be prioritized before presentation to the CPC. Mr. Creel said the administration has put together a list of the repairs they believe are necessary and there are enterprise costs to not replacing items in a timely manner such as the use of staff to do band-aid maintenance. This goes to how the District wants to manage the facility they are in. Is it preferable to do repairs over the summer or have failure events during the school year?
Ms. Dobrow said when she was the Lincoln School PTA President she was told that the authority to plant trees rests with the Town, and asked whether the authority to cut trees down also rested with the Town. Mr. Creel said that he checked with Ken Bassett, the tree warden, and Mr. Bassett said his focus is on public ways and the school trees are not his area. Mr. Creel said it is the school’s responsibility to cut down and plant trees. Ms. Manos asked whether it presents safety problems for the tree maintenance program to be extended over three years as recommended. Mr. Creel replied stretching this to three years is fine and if a condition endangers safety the administration will take action.
Ms. Manos asked whether locker room renovation is included in the Field house project. Mr. Creel said this was inadvertently addressed this summer when a flood in the girl’s locker room necessitated replacement of all tile in the girl’s locker room with this being financed by insurance reimbursement. In the evening, locker rooms are now closed and locked with only the unisex bathroom open for sports in the evening.
Ms. Manos asked whether Magic Garden or the Recreation Department should shoulder any of the cost for repairs to the Hartwell building. Mr. Creel said the classrooms being renovated are used by the integrated preschool and not Magic Garden. As to other Town uses of Hartwell, Mr. Brandmeyer said it is important to make the point that the Town uses these facilities but that the District is responsible for their maintenance. Mr. Brandmeyer said replacement of the exterior deck on the rear of Hartwell is important for ADA compliance and as a means of emergency egress and Hartwell will not be included in the master plan. John Robinson said there could be no state reimbursement for renovation of Hartwell because previously state money was used for a new building to replace Hartwell and the state does not provide funds for a new building and then provide more funds for rehabilitation of the old building you were replacing.
Mr. Brandmeyer presented the proposal for instructional technology equipment. Mr. Brandmeyer provided background. The School Committee has a small technology warrant each year just to keep the infrastructure up and running. The CPC has known that a larger request would be coming. The current proposal is a three year purchasing plan with a one year cost of $224,000. This proposal seeks funds to purchase technology equipment, software licenses, and support systems to support the technology curriculum integration initiative.
Year one is described in detail with less specificity for years two and three. Year one provides for basic needs; year two finalizes basic needs and begins work on specialized placements; year three concentrates on specialized placements.
Mr. Brandmeyer said the proposal seeks to give a realistic picture of what is needed but also attempts to maintain flexibility. It provides information on the scope of computer purchasing with the understanding that specific configuration of computers (i.e. the number of computers in classrooms, stationary labs, or mobile labs) could change.
Mr. Brandmeyer said this proposal seeks funding for a year round full time technical support person. Mr. Brandmeyer said this could initially be funded as a capital improvement as this person will be needed to purchase, install, and support the acquisitions. Eventually the employee costs would be shifted to the operating budget at whatever scale needed. The Committee discussed whether the request for technical support staff should be presented as a capital request. Mr. Brandmeyer argued that this is part of the cost of acquiring this equipment and that he would like to leave it in for the first conversation. Ms. Hessler suggested this be presented as a less costly alternative to buying the equipment with installation included.
Ms. Trask asked whether there are plans for Hanscom to have comparable equipment. Mr. Brandmeyer said planning and pilot projects have been district-wide. Hanscom Primary is currently in the best shape for technology equipment. He said when the last five year contract to run Hanscom was negotiated the District wanted a technology initiative but that one was not included in the contract. Again the District will attempt to include it in the contract, but if it is not there are other options. Ms. Trask said Hanscom parents could let DODES know they are interested in this for their children. Mr. Brandmeyer said DODES wants to talk with parents when it visits in October.
Ms. Manos asked about the proposal’s statement that roughly three computers per classroom are sought in light of the request to buy 72 computers which would be roughly two per classroom. Mr. Brandmeyer and Mr. Naso emphasized that they are not prepared to say how many computers there will be per classroom at this point because there may need to be more computers in classrooms for certain grades and they are seeking flexibility in allocation between classroom, labs, and mobile labs. With that said, the 72 computers to be purchased would yield approximately three computers per classroom because there will be existing computers kept to round out this number. Ms. Manos suggested the District should be prepared to explain why 72 is the right number.
Mr. Dobrow moved that the School Committee vote to submit the FY08 Capital Planning Initiatives to the CPC for consideration. Ms. Hessler seconded the motion. All elected members voted in favor, with Ms. Allen and Ms. Trask concurring.
Ms. Dobrow reminded the Committee members to let her know if something should be added to the agenda and that documents for the School Committee packet should be submitted on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting week.
Ms. Antia said the Lincoln Comprehensive Long Range Plan Committee will be making a presentation at the State of the Town meeting and they are attempting to know the needs of the Town. They have asked town committees to identify long and short term critical items. Ms. Antia asked for comments on language submitted to her by Ms. Dobrow in response to this request.
Ms. Antia suggested a section on the strengths and values of the schools be included. For guidance, Mr. Brandmeyer suggested the School Committee budget guidelines. Ms. Manos suggested that the mission/vision statement could also be useful.
Initially, Ms. Manos recommended three round table discussions, one on the budget, one on School Committee goals and a third meeting on a topic to be determined. The Committee believed that many topics for a possible third meeting, such as homework or the Pledge of Allegiance, were more appropriate for the principals to consider. The Committee determined not to have a round table discussion on the budget or a third discussion but the roundtable on School Committee goals will be held in the spring. A communication to the PTA will be drafted thanking them for the ideas for topics and stating that these are interesting but might be handled in a more informative manner by the school principals or by the central administration.
The Committee considered setting aside thirty minutes for public comments about the budget from 6:45 to 7:15 PM at the November 16 meeting and perhaps at a December meeting and in lieu of a budget round table discussion. Advantages would be that it invites the public, makes it clear that the Committee welcomes their perspective, and offers an opportunity for feedback to avoid last minute problems. A disadvantage would be that the public will be commenting on the budget as discussed at the prior School Committee meeting and a new iteration will be discussed later in the meeting. A question is whether this really offers more opportunity for meaningful public participation than a typical School Committee meeting. No decision was made on having this special time for public comment on the budget. Ms. Dobrow will create an announcement for the mini-link stating that the School Committee will be discussing the FY08 budget at specific upcoming meetings.
The School Committee has the right to be represented at the MASC annual business meeting but to do so they must designate a representative. Ms. Manos plans to attend the conference but does not plan to attend the business meeting. No representative was appointed.
The Committee made editorial changes to the proposed report. Mr. Schmertzler moved that the School Committee accept the report as amended. Ms. Hessler seconded the motion. All elected members voted in favor, with Ms. Allen and Ms. Trask concurring.
The School Committee changed the date of the December 21 meeting to December 14. They also changed the beginning of the October 5 meeting to 5 PM in order to accommodate three members who wish to attend the Lincoln Sudbury High School open house. Two topics (Status of Professional Development and Energy Conservation) will be moved on the long term agenda from October 5 to October 19.
Respectfully submitted,
Sara Rolley, School Committee Recording Secretary