05 April 2017: School Committee Meeting

School Committee Meeting 05 April 20177 Members Present, Student representative: Cole Conlin  Spotlight on Excellence & Permissions to Enter.

• Science and Engineering Fair.
• Bartlett Community Partnership School
• LHS Ice Hockey Team

Public Hearing for Interdistrict Choice: No comments from the public.  2016-17 had 30 open slots, 15 were filled.  Decision to continue the School Choice decision is made annually. Motion to recommend continued participation for grades 9-12 (30 students within grades 9-12). 7 yeas approved.MotionsThere were 8 new motions presented tonight:

• 7.I. [By Robert Gigac]: Request the Superintendent work with the City Administration to develop a plan and/or update on the capital improvement funds that were allocated for the schools. City RFP process, repairs that were determined will proceed in May.  Mr. Gignac requests looking into roof repairs and AC/Boiler repairs. Motion passes.

• 7.II. [By Connie Martin]: Requesting an update on the plan for recruiting and hiring a new Head of School for Lowell High School, including a proposed timeline for assembling the interviewing committee and any public sessions that will be part of the process. 

Registered Jonathan Richmond. Begins by speaking about LRTA passes and then proceeds to enumerate his thoughts concerning the hiring requirements and qualifications for new Head of School. Registered speaker Daniel Ouk speaks about suggestions for chosing LHS Head of School.In my opinion, the acrimonious and abrasive nature of this segment of the meeting was unnecessary and distracting from the importance of the process of selecting a new LHS Head of School. It is worth viewing this for yourself on LTC’s posting of the meeting video when that occurs. Move about 40 minutes in to the video to view this for yourself.Ms. Martin questions the process and the timeline. Superintendent Khelfaoui clarifies that there is a plan and a timeline and that the taskforce is in process. Should a person be interested in becoming part of this taskforce (approximately 15 members), that person should apply via email or snail mail to either Superintendent Khelfaoui or Anne Sheehy, Director of Human Resources, Personnel & Recruitment. Ms. Doherty is absolutely on point in suggesting the importance of including stakeholders representative of the population of Lowell High School in the taskforce. 

• 7.III. [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent form a task force to interview Lowell High School Head of School applicants.

• 7.IV. [By Connie Martin] Requesting an update on the staff plans for Principals and Assistant Principals for the fy17 and fy18.

• 7.V [By Jacqueline Doherty] Request the Superintendent provide the committee with the DESE School Climate Survey along with recommendations as to whether we should implement the survey or some other instrument. The recommendations should also include timelines for beginning to collect baseline data about school climate, family involvement, or other aspects that address the education of the whole child.

Mitchell Chester (DESE Commissioner) has announced (link here) that, following MCAS 2.0 testing this year, students in Grades 5, 8, and 10 will be asked to complete a survey about school climate. DESE claims that the results will not be disaggregated nor used in any significant manner, so my question is WHY subject students to this “optional” survey right after the completion of a high-stakes and draining academic test? According the Dr. Chester’s update, parents and students can refuse to complete the survey; in fact, some entire districts have already decided not to administer this DESE survey. It doesn’t sound like LPS is going to do that. Also, according to DESE’s update reference above, parents can request that principals and/or superintendent show the survey questions to them.What was confusing throughout the discussion is that Lowell Public Schools is part of a consortium of school districts developing a more thorough and valid survey of community education stakeholders that will hopefully become part of a more thorough and thoughtful analysis of the public school system.  This consortium survey is in draft form and not yet ready for administration to student from what I understand.

• 7.VI [By Steve Gendron] Request the Superintendent work with the City and the LRTA to develop a program to provide free bus passes to Lowell High School students based on financial need.

• 7.VII [By Connie Martin] Requesting that the administration provide the committee with an update on plans to accommodate the middle school bubble for the FY17-18 school year.

• 7.VIII [By Robert J. Hoey] Request Superintendent conduct a review of safety and security in our schools.

Joint Finance and Student Support Services Subcommittee report on meeting 3/29/17. John Descoteaux presented a draft plan for a 5-zone system (eliminating city-wide). The current desegregation order would stay in place. The issue is complicated by costs for busing (the Cawley option for LHS would need 26 additional buses or a projected $3.2 million plus additional amounts for future years). Start/dismissal times would need adjustment as well. The endeavor needs further study, which was the recommendation from the subcommittees. Mayor Kennedy notes the cost of busing is going to increase substantially over time and that some of the proposed zones will be unfair to 2 neighborhoods. The K-8 model being proposed to accommodate a 5-zone system will necessitate additional teachers. Mayor Kennedy supports a more thorough look at how the schools provide transportation in order to potentially increase efficiency. Motion to accept.There were 3 Reports from the Superintendent and 2 items under New Business:

• Report: Tutoring Services offered by Dharma Center
• Report: Community Service Update
• Report: Quarterly Report on Motions
• New Business: Interdistrict Choice (Voted on previously)
• New Business: Farm to School Research Project

For anyone looking for the full meeting packet and agenda, please navigate to the City of Lowell's Agenda/Minutes website.

The Test Participation Penalty

I wonder how many parents have submitted a letter to opt a child out of state mandated testing (MCAS2.0)? And in the process of opting-out, were any of those parents called to discuss their choice with the school administrator? According to the current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, parents need to have a choice in a child's education. It appears, however, that "choice" has limits.According to state and federal government, there should be a "choice" of educational setting.  School setting is a choice, whether it is public, charter, private, or religious. That's a good choice according to the government. Using federal funds to pay for vouchers? That's the current federal proposal. And our government claims that that kind of choice is also a "good" choice.However, if you exercise your parental judgement by choosing to opt your child out of long, arduous, standardized tests like MCAS 2.0 or PARCC, then your choice as a parent is questionable. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education really does not want parents to make that choice. Why? Because in assessments, unless a significant number of students participate in those tests, the reported results may become skewed or inaccurate.The issue of test participation rates is part of the newest federal education act, ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). The current DESE draft of Massachusetts' ESSA application states that:

E. Participation Rate. Describe how the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into its system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 200.15.A school’s summative performance level will be lowered if that school assesses less than 95% of students in the aggregate or for any subgroup that meets a minimum N size of 20.

Broken down to simpler terms, this statement means that if a group of parents decides that MCAS 2.0, the standardized test in Massachusetts, is harmful to their child, the entire school and school district could be penalized. The penalty is to lower a school's rating (Level 1, high to Level 5, low) by one level if less than 95% of students eligible for testing participate.Here's a mathematical example: A Pre-K through Grade 4 school may have 500 students. The two grades that participate in state testing within that school are Grades 3 and 4. Perhaps there are 100 students in each of these grades (200 total). If the parents of 11 student request that their children be excused from MCAS 2.0, as is their parental right, then according to the regulation, the state will lower the school's level rating by one.I believe a new feature of the ESSA draft is that participation rates apply to subgroups of students. An example of a subgroup would  be a group of students from a given school who are also identified as English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, or Economically Disadvantaged students.  Applying the 5% non-participation rate penalty, if there are 25 children identified as Students with Disabilities in Grades 3 and 4, and parents of as few as 2 students choose to opt them out, then the school's level rating could be lowered.The stakes for building and district administrators to maintain excellent school ratings are quite high, and therein lies the conflict between parental choice and the unfair penalties for participation rates. The feds bully the states, the states in turn bully the districts, and the principals and parents are caught up in a conflict of choosing what is best for students.Parents should not have their decision as to whether or not to subject their child to standardized MCAS 2.0 testing questioned if opting-out is truly a choice. If too many opt-outs skew the test results, maybe it's time to look at the value of the assessment.

It Doesn't End with Vouchers

If you don't know about H.R. 610, here is a link to the text and the bill's progress. I urge you to follow it and, if you feel strongly about it, respond to it. While my Congressional Representative is not a member of the House Committee currently reviewing this legislation, I want her to know exactly how this bill will impact our Local Education Agency (LEA).A tacked on provision in this legislation can be found at the very end: dismantling (my word) of the No Hungry Kids Act. Under the No Hungry Kids Act, fruit and vegetable offerings increased and low- and non-fat milk was offered. Those requirements would be removed. Additionally, the proposal in HR610 would eliminate monitoring school lunch/breakfast choices for sodium, trans fats and saturated fats.Why does this matter? Childhood and adult obesity continues to be a factor in health and well-being. In school food programs students are exposed to healthier eating options. If you are unfamiliar with the effects of less healthy food choices, read Michael Pollan or Mark Bittman or Jamie Oliver. If you want to see the results of eating high-sodium, high-fat and out of balance carbs, see the film Supersize Me.Students who receive school lunches in high poverty (economically disadvantaged - to use MA DESE's new terminology) currently have more healthy choices. Unbelievably, HR610 proposes to change that by eliminating the requirements for low sodium, low fat and fresh fruit/vegetable choices.To what purpose?  The cynic in me wonders what giant food supplier or lobby is balking at the "expense" of providing students with healthy breakfasts and lunches.Keeping school food service as a healthy eating opportunity gives me yet another reason to stay on top of HR610.

What's the Plan Phil?

Remember the episode of Modern Family when Phil attempted to save the old family station wagon from rolling down a hill by jumping on the hood? (video clip here)

What's the plan, Phil?

Pretty sure I used that same phrase while reading through HR610 this week. HR610, a bill introduced by Representative King (R, IA),  which offers among other things, vouchers to all families of school-aged children in the name of school choice. In fact the "short title" of this legislation is "Choices in Education Act of 2017". I have a lot of questions about this without even debating that "choices" in schooling already exist (a post for another day).So here we go:

Just scroll through the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (and subsequent amendments and reauthorizations). This is the education bill HR610 proposes to replace. School libraries, migratory students, students in poverty, neglected and impoverished students, homeless students, English Language Learners. HR610 will do away with all of the legislation that began in 1965 during Lyndon Johnson's administration. All of it. What will support those students? A voucher program funded through block grants, apparently.So here are some of my questions:The funding: Although HR610 does not come right out and say it directly, can we all suppose that by eliminating the Elementary & Secondary Act of 1965 and all of the amendments, any further funding of current federal grant programs will disappear?  And through elimination of this funding source, what services currently available to students and families will disappear?This financial report, from the Feb. 15 2017 Lowell School Committee Meeting shows the sources of Grant Funding and expenditures to date. <report>. Picking out the obvious federal funding (Title I, II, III) would include $7,386,139 and eliminate services for student support (for example, social workers in the case of Title I).  Additional federal grants fund the 21st Century Schools programs. If those grants were eliminated, there would no longer be extended day or enrichment programs for students. Need homework help? Tough darts.Another report from the 15 February school committee notes ALL grant funding - private and government. Now look at this line from HR610 just in case there was any doubt that the federal government wishes to have a hand on non-federal monies (This quote is from Section 105).

Will this language from section 105 necessitate re-allocation of STATE funding toward a voucher program as well?Who is counting the students and when: The program proposed in HR610 necessitates an accurate count of ALL students in a local education agency (LEA). By ALL, HR610 means all students attending public, charter, private (religious schools included here) and those who are home-schooled.In Massachusetts, the counts of students has historically taken place on October 1, meaning that a student who is not registered for school in a district on September 29 and arrives, say on October 2nd, is not included in the Foundation Enrollment (click here for MA guidelines on who is included in the count) and therefore not part of the calculation for the Foundation Budget or per pupil allocation from the state. Wherever that student was on October 1st receives the funding for the student for that academic year.The inverse of that is also true for a student who transfers out of a district on October 2, so while this makes my accounting-brain crazy, statistically, it probably is pretty close unless an entire school closed in mid-year and resulted in a large population of new students flooding a local district.Since private school students and home-schooled students are not included in the current method of calculation it follows that adding in those students to any enrollment numbers would make a difference in the resulting amounts of money allocated per pupil. The bottom line would mean that traditional public schools would receive less funding per student. Slice the pie a bit thinner because more need a share.For a community such as Lowell with a large contingent of students with challenging needs, even less resources will no doubt have devastating results on the students who most need the supports and services currently in place. What will be eliminated?A few more questions, so bear with me:Under Section 105.2, HR610 requires that the amount of the voucher may not exceed the cost of tuition (fees, and transportation) for a private school or the cost of homeschooling?

For me, this provision opens up a number of issues. Are private (and religious) schools and home-schoolers willing to open their financial records to auditing so that a federal overseer can confirm that the voucher does not exceed the costs as defined by HR610? What costs will be allowed for home-schooling families. Program costs? Costs for the space within a dwelling (like a home office)?  And for both private and home-schools, will the same requirements for time on task and academic year now apply? Will private schools  be required to accept every student regardless of academic need or disability, or will those students either sign away their rights to a free and equitable education or just not receive the services that they require for academic success?Public schools have open doors; they accept every student and provide not only academic support but often social supports. I'm not certain that this proposed legislation does anything more than pander to a select group, and it concerns me. The students who require the supports provided by federal title grants will be hurt by HR610, and I cannot in good conscience support it."What's the plan, Phil?" Other than dismantling public education, I'm not sure.

School Committee: 15 February 2017

School Committee Meeting 15 February 20176 present, SC Descoteaux absent, Student representative: Onoste OmoyeniMr. Gignac requests taking Eagle Scout Michael Wojas’ report on textile recycling out of order.Permissions to EnterUsually the Permissions to Enter are not all that controversial.  Not tonight. The inclusion of a request for $4,921,313 for Aramark (1 year contract extension) generated about 45 minutes of discussion (my comments follow).$4,981,113 in expenses ($4,921,313 allocated to Aramark in order to exercise a 1-year option for food service management in 2017-18), See detail in the Meeting Packet (downloadable PDF)SC Gignac speaks to some issues he noticed during a recent visit to a satellite school (in food-service lingo, that would be a school where there is no kitchen. The lunches are prepared at another site (the Rogers) and transported.). SC Gignac noted the unappetizing appearance of the food, noting that the hot meal he observed was unidentifiable, and the marginally acceptable freshness. The director of the school shared he/she had to sort through a bin of fresh food (fruit, I believe) and remove rotten food. Mr. Gignac noted that the serving size (the school serves middle- and high-school age youth) was small, the presentation was unappetizing and the quality not acceptable. He notes that some schools with kitchen have experienced similar issues with food service in the past and expresses discomfort in awaarding a 1-year contract extension to Aramark.The Aramark representative (name not given) cites some possible transportation issues that resulted in the food quality; however, the portion sizes provided are regulated by USDA and Aramark adheres to those portion regulations.SC Gignac questions why satellite schools do not have more than one food choice. Aramark representative states there are some choices (hot meal, salad, and sandwich choice). Both SC Gignac and SC Hoey who were making a visit noted that on this visit a salad and “hot meal” were offered, but not the sandwich option which should have offered.  Both SC members note that school lunch is especially important to students in this setting as the in-school meal is possibly the only meal the students access. SC Gignac repeats that he would like to see an improvement prior to awarding an extension. SC Hoey notes that the quality of food at the alternative school (LeBlanc) was poor; the food quality was unacceptable and needs to be improved.  SC Gignac photographed the food he observed during his school visit and shared that image with other school committee members.SC Doherty proposes a motion like to take the Aramark expenditure out of Permissions to Enter.The unnamed Aramark representative mentions that the Lowell management group is working with Worcester’s operation to learn if there are improvements that can be initiated in Lowell.  Mayor Kennedy asks for explanation as to why a sandwich choice would have be missing from a day’s delivery (snow days, delivery issues, food choice not ordered).  If I understood this conversation correctly, there was an assertion that the school clerk at times makes lunch selection decisions (see my comments following). A second Aramark representative, Sharon Lagasse, visited Worcester’s satellite program and explains that the hope is to learn some techniques for efficiency that could be implemented in Lowell to improve satellite school food service.SC Gignac asks for permission for LeBlanc Social Worker to speak to the concerns from the school’s perspective (older students need more food/larger portion, noticing the difference in portion sizes and options offered at LHS (where some of the students at this school originate) causes students to feel that they don’t deserve equitably food service quality, and sometimes lunch offering is a motivation for students to attend school).Dr. Khelfaoui asserts that delaying the line item approval is a bad idea. He expresses disappointment that he is hearing about the meal issues for the first time at this school committee meeting. States that he will issue a directive about the procedure for lunch choice will be in place as of tomorrow and feels this is a communication issue, not a food quality issue.SC Gendron asks if delaying this line item from tonight's Permissions until next meeting would have any ill-effects. Mr. Frisch feels he can give a report of what corrections can be or have been be implemented by the next meeting and the line item can be re-entered.  Ms. Omoyeni speaks in favor of SC Doherty’s motion - not a punitive process but an investigative process. Roll call 6 yeas, 1 absent, approved.Some years ago, there was an effort to provide students with more than one choice for lunch: a hot choice, a salad, and a sandwich. To manage food preparations, students at the elementary school where I taught (which did have a kitchen), made their lunch choice of lunch from the menu when they arrived in the morning. Those lunch counts were sent to the school clerk in the morning and forwarded to the kitchen staff.  In a satellite school, I’d imagine that a similar process takes place with the count of how many lunches of each category sent to the central kitchen by the school’s clerk. The policy at the time in the school in which I worked was that students who arrived tardy, were served the hot lunch choice by default. I wonder if the reference to a clerk “making lunch choices” might be confused with the clerk transmitting lunch counts and, if a student arrived tardy, the sandwich/salad choices were not available for practicality. School lunch, as some Committee Members noted, can sometimes be the only real meal a student eats during a day - that is a sad fact for some students living below the poverty line. Lunches that are unappealing and fresh foods that have gone beyond expiration should never be served no matter what. Pressing the pause button before engaging an extension of a food contract, even a one-year contract, not only sends the message that the School Committee cares about the quality of meals served to our students, but lets a very large corporate contractor know that the expectation for quality and healthy food service is a priority. As Ms. Omoyeni noted, this pause is not punitive, it is informative.SC Martin does not participate in the CTI line item for permission to enter ($9,000). 5 yeas, 2 absent, approved.All other permissions were approved (6 yeas, 1 absent, approved).MotionsThree motions made, all by SC Doherty.

• 6.I. [J Doherty]: Request the City Manager to provide the Committee with a report that details the City’s Maintenance of Effort Agreement for the last 3 years related to expenditures on the schools. (Typographical error; correction underlined).

Maintenance of Effort funding is sizeable and SC Doherty would like to examine how these services a provided to the schools. SC Hoey supports the motion and thinks the information should have been made available and transparent 25 years ago. Mayor Kennedy thinks it is worthwhile to go through the Maintenance of Effort jointly between Schools and City administrations. Passed.The Maintenance of Effort amounts confuse me; I understand that some services are provided to the school department by the city (data processing, snow removal as examples). Making these expenditures transparent hopefully will improve understanding of costs and funding between the school department and the city. 

• 6.II. [J Doherty]: Request the Superintendent provide the committee with a report of the transportation cost estimates of bussing students to a high school at Cawley over the next 12 years based on the number of students by neighborhood currently attending our schools.

SC Doherty would like this information as the Lowell High School project costs are calculated and how those costs might impact future budgeting.

• 6.III. [J Doherty]: Request the Superintendent provide the committee with a report that looks at our K-12 student population by zip code to determine the number of students from each neighborhood.

In addition to this information, SC Gignac asks about the status for zoning of schools. Ms. Durkin notes that the location of a STEM middle school may impact such a report. SC Gendron asks about neighborhood zoning (moving from city-wide to neighborhood bus scenarios); Ms. Durkin can include this; however, the desegregation plan either has to be vacated or adhered to and this will have an impact on creating city-wide busing. The creation of City-wide schools was a result of the desegregation plan and ensure that equity is achieved. SC Martin notes the profound impact of vacating a desegregation order (she would not be opposed to such a move if it negates the primacy of every child attending a desegregated school in Lowell). PassedReports of the SuperintendentThere were 8 items under Reports of the Superintendent.

• 7.I Knowledge Bowl Schedule (see packet for dates and competition details)
• 7.II Lowell High School Graduation Date & Speaker Announcement (see packet for information)
• 7.III. Response To Robert Gignac's Motion Of 01/18/17 Regarding Extracurricular Activities Throughout The District

SC Gignac requests the addition of how many student participate.

• 7.IV. Response To Jacqueline Doherty’s Motion Of 01/18/17 Regarding The Time Allocated For Recess, Lunch, Physical Education, And Health

Registered speaker (Darcie Boyer) member of City-wide Parent Council and LEJA. Thanks the administration for report but notes the disparity of times across the schools. The CPC will examine this issue in more detail at their next meeting. Notes the importance of lunch/nourishment and free time to student well-being.So many studies remind and inform us that in order to be ready for of learning and retain learning, students need a balance of “down time” - play and academic time. Students of all ages need to be active, to expend excess energy,  to socialize, to have a brain break. So with all this information on the importance of social and emotional health, why do schools continue to shave away recess time? Why are 6 and 7 year olds asked to sit still and work their brains without a break? As the academic demands have increased on students, the response has generally been to increase "time on task" to the point that young learners are expected to sit still far beyond what they are developmentally capable of doing. Here's a link from Harvard Medical School  as an example of why it is so important to give students down time, but don't stop with just one opinion.  Fifteen minutes of recess (which oftentimes includes getting ready to go outside and walking to the play area); 20 minutes (or less) to walk to the cafeteria, go through a lunch line, and eat - none of this is adequate for student well-being.SC Doherty thanks administration for the information; notes 10-minute recess, 15-minute lunches do not include transport.  Makes a motion to refer report jointly to Curriculum and Student Services subcommittees to find some way to return to other aspects now that NCLB has been replaced by ESSA. SC Martin would like some additional information about the disparity of times between urban and suburban districts. Passed.

• 7.V. Monthly Budget Report
• 7.VI and 7.VII School Calendar and School Committee Meeting Dates for 2017-18
• 7.VIII. Personnel Report

All superintendent’s reports 7.I through 7.V passed. 7.VI approved by roll call (6 yeas, 1 absent, approved). 7.VII (first reading - no action). 7.VIII approved.New Business:Educational Research request approved (6 yeas, 1 absent, approved)(Taken out of order): Michael Wojas, a LHS 2016 graduate, gives an update on his Eagle Scout project, a textile recycling effort which was a collaboration with Lowell’s Solid Waste and Recycling as well as Bay State Textiles. Mr. Wojas who is enlisting in the Navy at the end of February, has designed a project to recycle effort. The monies raised through the recycling project results in some fundraising based on the amount of textiles collected and recycled. Currently, recycling boxes are sited at 15 Lowell schools, with the hope that middle schools will become involved in the near future. To date just under 2,000 pounds of textiles resulting in rebates of $7,731 which then go to support the schools. The Lincoln School, Morey School and Reilly School have been the top collectors of textiles. The bin upkeep is maintained by Bay State Textiles at no cost to the City.Meeting detail and support documentation  can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 16 November 2016

School Committee Meeting 16 November 2016Six present, Mayor Kennedy Absent (SC Gendron presiding)The attention of the School Committe was on the Middle School Report (Item 12) and Joint Subcommittee Minutes.Special Order of BusinessSC Gendron introduces both Principal Carmona of the Lincoln School and Francey Slater from Mill City Grows to speak about the recent Lincoln School Garden construction; a project video can be found here.  The garden, located  between the Lincoln School and Lincoln Street in what had been an eyesore and abandonded lot, is visioned as a place for extended learning and discovery. Along with the school garden, the space will become a community gardening space.Permissions to Enter$9,534 in expenses approved. See detail in the Meeting Packet.MotionsTwo motions were presented; both by SC Doherty

• 2016/456 (J. Doherty): request Superintendent meet with stakeholders to develop/plan for adequate nursing coverage in all schools. SC Doherty points to the important role of nurses in each school for students and staff. Concerned about compliance with state law regarding coverage and high turnover. SC Martin mentions substitute nursing coverage for absentees and school trips should be included (friendly amendment).

• 2016/457 (J. Doherty): requests Superintendent work with School Committee and City Council Facilities Subcommittees to establish monthly meeting dates to address ongoing maintenance issues. Motion to show solidarity to work with the City regarding issues of building maintenance. By scheduling dates in advance, members not on the subcommittee will have adequate notice and can arrange to attend. Building maintenance ($55 million number includes more than maintenance).  SC Gendron says that misunderstandings arise from miscommunications; would like to change the motion to “bi-monthly” from “monthly”. SC Doherty would like to see more frequent meetings to address critical needs (mentions heat issues in schools) and then possible shift to bi-monthly.

Mr. Hoey speaks about costs charter schools (net school spending for charter schools is $14 million - not all of this is maintenance). For the City Public Schools Mr. Frisch confirms $400,000-$500,000.Subcommittee ReportThe Joint Facilities Subcommittee report from November 2, 2016 and Item 12 (2016/450 Middle School Report) were taken together. SC Martin takes chair as this is SC Gendron’s report. See notes on this meeting here (11/2) or Meeting Packet p 30-32 and Middle School Report on p 71-73 of the Meeting Packet.See report in the Meeting Packet. Maintenance already addressed. Superintendent Khelfaoui through Mr. Frisch reports on middle school crowding and a plan requested by SC Gendron for addressing the middle school bubble.Four classrooms needed at STEM Academy (1 year solution for 2017-18) for grades 5-6. Recommendation for a permanent solution for a middle school solution after that time. Notes that class sizes of 26-30 students per class are lowered when considering pull-out students in Grade 5 (pull-out services for 60% of the day).  Mr. Frisch will confirm his understanding that 150 Grade 5 students across the City are pulled out for some portion of the instructional day.As much as possible, under the law, there is a requirement that students are instructed using the Least Restricted Environment (LRE). Sometimes this involves adaptations of the instruction planned by the “regular education” classroom teacher working with a special education teacher, and sometimes, as determined through Special Education evaluation testing and collaboration between the team (educators, parents and specialized therapists/instructiors) the student’s need requires more intensive instruction or pull-out instruction.Under the pull-out model for special needs, students go to locations other than the regular classroom for specialized instruction as outlined in each students Individualized Education Plan or IEP. Students may be pulled out for intervals during the school day up to 60% of the total school day. The remaining 40% of the day, the students are with their peers in the regular classroom setting. For example, if a student’s need is determined to be only in the realm of mathematics, the student may go to a separate space to receive the instruction that is needed for academic growth for just the mathematics portion of the school day instruction and will remain in the regular classroom for all other instruction and activity during the day.  Mr. Frisch is pointing out that in considering the class sizes at the Middle Schools the size of each instructional class can be somewhat lower due to the numbers of students who receive this smaller group or pull-out instruction.Mr. Frisch detailed the costs of adding classroom space at the STEM Academy for 2017-18.  These costs include: four teachers (approximately $480,000), an additional custodian ($55,000), guidance counselor ($80,000), and supplies/furnishing which will total $440,000.  Mr. Frisch is still calculating the costs associated with the permanent solution of a new STEM Academy.SC Gendron states 27.25 students this year and the STEM solution 26.66 for 2017-18.  Mr. Frisch notes that an additional 60 students could possibly transition to a Charter School in 2017-18 which would result in a further reduction.  This does not, however, take into consideration that any students who transition to a Charter School would result in lowered per pupil monies received by the City from the Commonwealth. The new classroom spaces would be obtained through reuse of the home economics and office space conversion . Mr. Hoey notes there could be six possible spaces when considering some spaces he noticed during a recent tour (removal of TV Studio for example).  He notes that the increased student population (over 700 students) may necessitate the need for an addditional Assistant Principal. Mr. Frisch asserts that the District would prefer to avoid moving children in a CSA classroom (CSA means Children on the Spectrum of Autism).Superintendent Khelfaoui points to the transition from Grade 5 to 6 is not as easy a transition as it is for students coming from Grade 4 to the middle grades, Grade 5.  Charter School increased capacity (32 fifth graders anticipated to move to Charter Schools) may impact the configuration of the short-term plan.  School Committee and District will need to come to a decision about whether the STEM Academy become K-8 or is divided into 2 schools (K-4 and 5-8). Many middle schools are reaching the 700 student population - whether or not that threshold triggers the need for a new assistant principalship will become a decision impacting more than just the STEM School (Sullivan School for example is already at close to this threshold).SC Martin states that the original intent of the STEM school model was predicated on the Stoklosa being built with the STEM curriulum and focus in mind. School Committee will need to address the “what’s next” for STEM facilities in the near future. Superitendent Khelfaoui reminds the Committee that there is no longer any capacity to transition STEM Academy students back into all the other Middle School buildings; there is no additional physical space to include Grades 7 and 8 at the Rogers site on Highland Street.  The conversations for addressing capacity with the City (building, leasing space, etc.) has not yet been started. When the High School project is completed there will be a possibility of addressing the capacity for the seventh grade (in 2018-19) will be less problematic, but that is a long way off.SC Martin speaks to the original intent of creating a STEM school had been in conjunction with building a new middle school.  Reconfiguring the grade structures could have unintended consequences that the School Committee and Administration needs to examine carefully and thoughtfully. A longer term solution will need to take place now as opposed to 6 months from now.SC Doherty suggests looking at other options such as centralizing all Grade 8 students in one location (or, as previously suggested, putting all the Pre-Kindergarten in one location).  Superintendent Khelfaoui states that adding students to Lowell High during construction will be more than difficult to manage. The School Department and City will need to meet collaboratively to form the ultimate solution.Accepted as a Report of Progress.Reports of the SuperintendentThere were four items under Reports of the Superintendent, including 2016/450 which was taken out of order during Public Participation.

• 2016/445: Youth Summit Report See page 34-35 of the Meeting Packet for details.
• 2016/446: BRIDGE Annual Report. See pages 37-62 of the Meeting Packet. This is an alternative education program which has been directed through Middlesex Community College and which will be transitioned to fully under the auspices of the Lowell Public Schools.
• 2016/449 : Monthly Budget Reportt.  See pages 64-70 of the Meeting Packet.

A donation of 60 books to the Office of Student Support Services and the Convention and Conference Requests (2) were all approved.Meeting Packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 02 November 2016

School Committee MeetingSix present, Mr. Descoteaux absentAlong with the prior meeting’s minutes, the minutes of the Special School Committee Meeting held on October 27, 2016 were approved. The October 27 meeting topic was Superintendent Khelfaoui’s evaluation.Permissions to Enter$51,060 in expenses approved. See detail in the Meeting Packet.Public ParticipationOtse Omeyeni, Lowell High School Senior Class President, spoke in favor of Agenda Item 2016/437, a proposal that would include a non-voting student representative in the School Committee.  After this presentation, the School Committee decided to take this item (Number 11 on the Agenda) out of order in order to facilitate discussion.The Committee members were generally in support of this agenda item; however, because of several corrections necessary to the proposal as worded (clarification that student representatives would not participate in Executive Sessions, for example), it has been referred to the Lowell High School Subcommittee for clarification.MotionsTwo motions were presented; both by Mr. Gignac

• 2016/432 (R. Gignac): Requests the Superintendent write a formal letter of thanks to members of the Lowell Fire Department for their generosity in providing winter coats for Lowell Public Schools students under their Coats for Ann Program.

• 2016/433 (R. Gignac): Request that Lowell Public Schools participate in the Massachusetts Youth Summit on Opiate Awareness taking place at the Tsongas Center.

Subcommittee ReportThe Finance Subcommittee met on October 26, 2016 to develop a policy for “permission to enter”  and a policy for budget transfer.  The details for these policies are found in the Meeting Packet on p 33-34Reports of the SuperintendentThere were five items under Reports of the Superintendent, including 2016/437 which was taken out of order during Public Participation.

• 2016/434, Community Service Learning See page 36-37 of the Meeting Packet for details submitted by each school.
• 2016/437: LHS Representative Proposal. Taken out of order under Public Participation.
• 2016/435: School Site Councils. See pages 45-49 of the Meeting Packet for each school’s Council make-up and schedule of meetings. A suggestion was made that in the future, whether the member is part of the faculty or a parent of a student would be helpful.
• 2016/436 LHS Atheltic Rule 53 Waiver Request.  Mr. DeProfrio spoke about the value of including students from the middle school in programs such as hockey not only help to build an individual sports program, but to enable students who might not have financial means o afford the expense of early instruction in a sport to more fully participate.
• 2016/438 MASS EEC Fiscal and Program Compliance Review. Reports starts on p 54 of the Meeting Packet.

Convention and Conference Requests (3) were all approved.Meeting Packet can be found here.

Joint Facilities Subcommittee Meeting, 02 November 2016

Joint Facilities SubCommittee Meeting (School Committee and City Council)Six presentThe meeting was requested jointly by the Lowell School Committee and the Municipal Facility Subcommittee. It took place prior to the regularly scheduled School Committee Meeting for the purpose of addressing two agenda items.Agenda Item 1: Discuss the Superintendent’s plan to address the over-crowding in middle schools in the 20170-2018 school year.Gary Frisch addresses joint committee. Superintendent & Leadership Team worked together to provide recommendation. Enrollment last year went up 137 students at middle school, 176 total for grades K-12. Additionally,  4 5th-grade classes were added last year.  Class size calculated for 2017-18, average 26.3 to 30.5/classroom (predictions of 32 last year) without adding classrooms. SC Gendron notes last year the projection was 28-30 with Rogers/Wang solution in place.  Adding classrooms at STEM Academy would reduce class sizes city-wide (4 sections of 5th, 2 sections of 6th - increase 4 new classroom spaces at STEM Academy as students move to next grade level).  The plan involves converting two spaces - home ec & TV studio plus conversion of smaller divided instructional spaces. The LPSD would need to promote the STEM Academy as a Middle School option to the Grade 4 students transitioning to Middle School for 2017-18.The student population at the STEM Academy would increase from 606 to 756 students and would require additional staff and supply resources.SC Gendron asks about how the proposed plan impacts class size.  Mr. Frisch believes these adaptations bring average class size to 26-28.  Questioned if the average would be reduced, Mr. Frisch believes the average would be reduced.SC notes current report states 28 students per class is a "band-aid" and doesn’t like putting a temporary solution in place. What happens if the proposal before the committee is not agreed upon? Mr. Frisch believes the current fifth grade students would be matriculated to 6th grade at STEM.  SC Gignac asks if this 2017-18 plan in not in place, what would happen.  Mr. Frisch reiterates that 4 fourth-grades at Rogers going to fifth grade plus 2 fifth grades going to 6th grade would mean additional classrooms.SC Hoey wonders about adding a fifth grade to each PK-4 school. Mr. Frisch says new high school project may provide different space capacity (opening the Freshman Academy).  Currently space options are limited as buildings are at capacity. Present time is a space crunch but administration looking at adding space without using modular (not cost-effective and are quite expensive). CC Hoey reiterates that the high school project is about five years off so that makes the impact of the high school project something to consider for the future.CC Leahy questions STEM Academy capacity proposal (150 students). What additional resources will be needed? Mr. Frisch notes a need for additional teachers, an additional assistant principal, and other resources. CC Leahy states he is not aware that the new high school project might prompt closing of the Freshman Academy. SC Gendron says this is an idea that was “floated” but it is one of several suggestions for configuration of grades after the high school project is completed.  CC Leahy still concerned about class size. CC Samaras notes he would like more of the report to look at (much of the report appeared to be delivered verbally) and wonders about the feasibility of an “extended day” (requires agreement of parents, school department, bargaining units).  He would prefer to see money spent on teachers over acquiring physical spaces temporarily.SC Gendron expresses concern that this is a “band-aid”: too late in bid for modulars similar to the solution arrived at last school year. and voices opinion this proposal is a “band-aid on a band-aid.” A reasonable class size needs to be prioritized. SC Gignac would like some consideration given to what happens in 2018-19 with STEM Academy students who will be seventh graders.  He suggest that his prior request for an RFP for modulars should have been addressed. He suggests it would be useful to see a comprehensive plan with multiple scenarios.Mr. Frisch expresses that the goal of 26 students (or less) per average class gives the school Leadership Team a target and is helpful in developing a plan with the Leadership Team. SC Gendron expresses that a lower average class size (20) would be even more preferable.CC Mercier would have appreciated a written plan at the meeting. Would like a report in the City Council packet by Friday. Mr. Frisch states that a report could be in packet the following Friday. Notes the many costs that are associated with adding classroom (buses, personnel, supplies).  SC Hoey notes that the staffing in schools with close to 16,000 students in the schools is an issue to consider; notes 20 years ago, Lowell built many schools to accommodate student population.  CC Leahy notes the lowest class size should be what we try for. CC Samaras urges consideration of an extended day. and would like the school department to consider programming that may not be working well. By analyzing the programming, there may be a gain in space. Encourages a study of programs to see if any changes of this nature might be necessary.Agenda Item 2: Discussion regarding facility maintenance in schools and school grounds.CC Leahy notes that the purpose of this discussion is to come up with a better plan to maintain Lowell’s schools.  Notes that there have been changes in the players.  Is there a way to stay ahead of the repairs/work orders? Notes that in his touring of facilities, noted disrepair of the high school building and that some of the issues seem to be ongoing.  Especially concerned about the process in getting repairs done; it shouldn’t take a year to make minor repairs. November 1 should not be when broken heating equipment is discovered. We can’t let the high school fall down around us because we’re expecting a new one.Mr. Frisch notes that the School Department is responsible for cleaning of the building. Proposes a joint administrative committee to work on the maintenance issues and states that deferred maintenance is bad for student learning. Definition of shared responsiblities needs better articulation. Current status is unacceptable.CC Samaras agrees with frustrations and notes never enough money to do everything we need to do.  Asks how school administration/custodial staff and central office staff prioritize the work that needs to be completed. Finding fault should not be the purpose of this review. Focus on the process that will ensure students are in a comfortable and safe situation.CC Mercier notes 19 schools with a boiler, roof leak or air handler leak problem. How did it get to this point that they are leaking simultaneously? What is the plan to address this? Mr. Frisch agrees the current status is unacceptable.  Notes need for urgent plan to address these repairs and that every child needs a healthy learning environment.  CC Mercier states that heating and the need for students need to wear coats in a classroom is a concern that needs to be addressed.CC Leahy notes that new people in place and the need to reorganize and manage this better. SC Hoey asks about the amount for charge-backs from City to School Deparment.  SC Gendron reminds joint committee that all the equipment in the schools built 30 years ago are all turning 30 at the same time (and needing major repair/replacement). Requests Mr. Underwood to speak to facilities status.  Mr. Underwood suggests that custodial staff could do some of the things that do not require permits; however collective bargaining limits that.  Willing to think “outside the box”, but at times limited by what is and is not allowable. Had requested Senior Custodians submit a priority list which joint committee has before them tonight.Manager Murphy cites unfairness of characterizing DPW as not doing the best they can. All the heating issues were addressed and states we (City) will continue to work as a partnership. DPW is doing best job possible.CC Samaras expresses a need for more communication between the School Committee and City Council. This is the time to have a paradigm shift. SC Gignac notes that a similar discussion was held four years ago; a rprioritized eport with more information is needed. Collaborative work should happen more frequently.Report of progress. Motion to adjourn.

School Committee Meeting, 21 September 2016

School Committee Meeting, 21 September 20166 present, Mr. Gendron AbsentThe items on tonight’s agenda were mostly routine. Business completed in just a few minutes beyond the one-hour mark. Permissions to EnterThree contracts approved for total of $120,200.MotionsWhile four motions were listed originally on the agenda for tonight’s meeting, only one was considered due to Mr. Gendron’s absence. Mr. Gendron requested the 3 motions he submitted be considered at the next meeting (October 5, 2016).2016/365 Mr.Gignac requested coordination between the City and LPSD in dedicating a POW/MIA chair. This coordination of efforts is already underway so that the dedication can take place during Lowell High School Homecoming.Reports of the SuperintendentThere were 5 reports from the Superintendent in response to requests and motions.  The first 3 items were accepted as Reports of Progress; the last 2 were approved on roll call.2016/367 Monthly Budget Report. Mr. Gignac questions and receives confirmation that the amount attributed to a Budget Analyst was in reality a temporary holding account (reminds the body that the Budget Analyst position had not been budgeted for). The amount charged in the account in question is zeroed out on a monthly basis as grant funds allocated for the position (grant manager?) are expended.  Ms. Martin reiterates her request for an Organizational Chart for Central Administrative positions. This request was put into the form of a motion. Report detail starts on p 39 in packet.2016/375 STEM curriculum at Lowell High School. Martha Cohn and Paula Bransfield walked the committee through the STEM activities beginning with Kindergarten and percolating through Grades 10-12.  Several successes were highlighted: Project Lead the Way, Idea Camp, STEM clubs. The District has received quite a number of grants and been awarded funds and support from both the business and academic world.This would have been a terrific Powerpoint to include in the packet.  Ms. Cohn and Ms. Bransfield highlighted the cross-curricular activities that have been developed, particularly at early grades. The activities and explorations used to develop engineering skills and process are inquiry based. That is certainly something that has been lacking in recent years and I am excited to see it return.  In using inquiry, students are presented with a problem and possibly some criteria for its solution. Through critical thinking and scientific process, they find solutions without the instructor telling exactly what to do - the words “no-tell zone” describe this perfectly. The instructor becomes more a facilitator and less of a lecturer. Good to see this returning to education!2016/379 Opioid Abuse Prevention and Awareness. Mr. Gignac expressed some disappointment with the University’s feasibility study associated with this report as it lacked detail for effective awareness. Given the current crisis of opioid abuse, there is an urgency in this area for recommendations to impress upon students (children) the gravity of opioid addiction. While the partnerships cited are a step in the right direction, the progress toward addressing this issue throughout the grades is taking too long. Ms. Durkin offered that the report contained in the packet was an excerpt and that there is a meeting scheduled for Thursday, 10/22 with the University. At that time, Ms. Durkin hopes to have some of the questions about the feasibility study answered and receive some more specific recommendations for moving forward.2016/380 Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan Revision and 2016/376 Home Education both passed on roll call.New BusinessThere were five items under New Business:

• 2016/362: Approval of an Educational Research Request. Ms. Martin requests further information (would like to see the survey instrument). Passes (1 absent, 5 yea, 1 present-Ms. Martin).
• 2016/364: Vote to accept Grant award of $2,000 to Bridge Program (1 absent, 6 yea)
• 2016/373: Approval of Expenditure Transfer. See p 92-93 of Meeting Packet (transfer to make year-end correction for FY2016. (1 absent, 6 yea)
• 2016/377:  Reclassification of Position. See p 95-97 of Meeting Packet. Substitute Motion made by Ms. Doherty to delay until next meeting in order to receive further description of the position and update the position description. (1 absent, 2 no-Mr. Hoey & Mr. Descoteaux, 4 yea).
• 2016/381: Vote to Approve Title Change. DESE requires a School Business Administrator to hold license in school administration; when a replacement for the prior business administrator was being sought, there was an effort to (locally) use the title CFO in order to attract strong business administrators who may be from out-of-state. Mr. Frisch, current holder of this position, applied for and received all the requisite licenses; the SBA title can be restored without changing salary or job description. The School Business Administrator is the title to which DESE refers. (1 absent, 5 yea)

Convention and Conference Requests (3) were all approved.Meeting Packet can be found here.

07 September 2016: School Committee Meeting

School Committee Meeting, 7 August 20166 present, Ms. Martin AbsentTonight’s meeting, the first after the start of the academic year, is the beginning of the regular twice-a-month meeting schedule.  The agenda was short and to the point - under 1 hour. Some of the Superintendent’s remarks were lost due to a faulty microphone. However, from what I could surmise, the topic will be revisited at a future meeting.  Permissions to EnterContracts for both Deputy Superintendent Jeannine Durkin and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Robin Desmond were approved.  $56,000 to SEEN collaborative for out-of-district Special Education service was also approved.Public ParticipationJonathan Richmond,  Chief Executive and Founder of the charitable organization Takeoff Space spoke to the School Committee regarding the decision process and communication resulting from a proposal he had brought to Lowell High administration, and ultimately, to the School Committee. The program, Takeoff Space, is meant to encourage and mentor top performing disadvantaged students to matriculate to top tier colleges. Mr. Richmond formally registered a complaint that his program was dismissed without due consideration. The High School made the decision not to participate in Mr. Richmond's program because this need was being addressed through another previously established initiative.Subcommittee Reports:

1. Facilities Subcommittee: Approval of Meeting of August 11, 2016. The content had be discussed at the August 17 meeting. Minutes accepted as report of progress.
2. Finance Subcommittee:  3 topics were on the agenda:
   1. Fiscal 2016 year end financials (including Apple hardware purchases and transfers to make up for loss of state funding for Kindergarten grant (paraprofessionals))
   2. Schedule/timeline for independent audit
   3. Fiscal 2017 year to date financials.  A motion was made and approved to develop a timeline for dealing with year-end surpluses so that the School Committee can decide how to allocate such funds.

3.  Lowell High Subcommittee meeting to discuss 4 motions by Mayor Kennedy.

Reports of the SuperintendentThere were 12 reports from the Superintendent in response to requests and motions.  Two of these prompted short discussion:2016/338 Lowell High School Graduates Attending College.  During this report, most of the discussion could not be heard because of a faulty microphone.  The District provided a report stating that 83.5% of Lowell High graduates are attending either a 2-year or 4-year college this Fall.  That compares favorably across the state.  The Committee had a couple of lingering questions. One of these was the data presented show that many students are attending either a 2-year school such as Middlesex Community College or a state 4-year college (University of Lowell).  There was a question from Ms. Doherty as to whether students are receiving sufficient guidance and encouragement to apply for “reach” schools, such as the Ivy Leagues.I attended state schools through post-masters work and have never for one moment thought that I didn’t get a superior education. It was “on me” to take advantage of classes and study, the value of my degrees came from the hard work I put into school, not from the name on the front gate. I also understand, on a parental level, what a financial burden attending a private university poses. Attending post-high school is a decision that only the student and his/her family can make, and while I would hope that Lowell High students are given information about grants and opportunities to attend their school of choice, I would hope the value of a public college or university will not be lost.2016/346 Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan Revision. There has been significant revision to this plan due to new regulations implemented by the Commonwealth. One new feature is that the incident report will be available online and includes drop-down selections which will make reporting more efficient.  Ms. Doherty suggested that some clarification is needed regarding the timeline of responses. The Plan was approved and changes to include more precise language will be added at the next meeting.New BusinessThere were four items under New Business:

• 2016/340: Permission to Post: PALS Program Head Coach. As explained by Ms. Durkin, the PALS program is funded through the university. University students provide mentor support for high school students.
• 2016/341 Permission to Post: Preschool Expansion Grant (PEG) Data Manager
• 2016/342 Permission to Post: PALS Program Assistant Head Coach
• 2016/353 Approval of a Study Grant

All passed.There was no Executive Session and the meeting adjourned at 7:27 pm (noted by Mayor Kennedy). Meeting Packet can be found here.

Follow the money

With the election about 8 weeks away, there's a lot of available "information", and I use that term lightly, about Ballot Question 2 (Balletopedia website for detailed text and Pro/Con Arguments). For anyone who may have missed it, Ballot Question 2 favors lifting the current cap on charter schools allowing up to an additional 12 new charter schools each year.I was having a discussion about this with a family member from a different state who pointed out that the "No On 2" people are not making their case strongly enough. The advertising on the "Yes" or lift-the-cap side is much slicker and more abundant. I don't think that's something that can be denied what with the MILLIONS of dollars being poured into innocuous sounding Question 2 proponent groups - groups with names like Great Schools Massachusetts, Families for Excellent Schools, and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER).The names of these groups are engineered to lull voters into thinking these groups are something they are not, because who in their right mind would not want a GREAT school in Massachusetts; which family members would want their child in an EXCELLENT school?  In reality, thanks to diligent and tireless reporting - not from the fourth estate, but from ordinary citizens who have sensed such groups had something more than greatness and excellence in mind, one finds that the funding behind those slick and prolific ads urging voters to vote "YES" on Question 2 more than a bit misleading.Here are three links to recent stories that all voters should read before deciding how to vote.

• Maurice Cunningham's "The Hidden Money Behind Great Schools: Strategic Grant Partners",
• Jonathan Pelton's "Charter School Industry Targets Massachusetts",
• Boston Globe "Donors Behind Charter Push Keep to Shadows").

Ask yourself, what is the return on investment that will make shelling out thousands or millions of dollars towards lifting the charter school cap worthwhile for out-of-state investors and hedge fund managers? That is the $18 million dollar question.

First Book/AFT Kicks Off Lowell's Books on Wheels

I'm really excited about this project!When the American Federation of Teachers-Massachusetts (AFT-MA), our local union's state affiliate, approached our local union a year ago about hosting a First Book/AFT Books on Wheels event, we were intrigued, but the timing was just not right. We may have had to put the project on a back burner, but it was never forgotten. And here we are at the start of a new school year, ready to launch for an event to take place in less than 8 weeks.  Things just got real!The premise is really simple.  First Book is a national non-profit with a mission to provide new books to children in need, addressing one of the most important factors affecting literacy – access to books. Through a unique partnership with American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the national affiliate of our local United Teachers of Lowell, we are planning to bring a semi-tractor trailer of new books (ages 0-18) - that's 40,000 to 44,000 books - to distribute absolutely free to our teachers, schools, programs, and families right here in Lowell.What is needed in return are 2,000 email addresses of programs and educators working with those children and families in need. By registering an email address, the owner can then access First Book's Marketplace where brand new books are available for 50-90% off list prices. I personally used First Book's Marketplace when I was in the classroom to round out my classroom library purchases (yes, teachers do indeed buy many materials) or to create a study set of a book a group of children were reading.Our efforts toward earning the Books on Wheels Truck of 40,000+ free books kicked off last Friday with the newest faculty members at Lowell Teacher Academy orientation.  We will begin recruiting all returning staff - teachers, administrators, coaches, paraprofessionals, custodians, cafeteria workers, therapists, librarians, school clerks, and tutors - beginning on Monday morning.We know this is a unique opportunity to increase access to literature for our families. While a truck loaded with 40,000 plus new books is a.w.e.s.o.m.e. by itself, we are hoping to make this event even better.  We've also established a gofundme effort to raise $5,000 which will allow Lowell's English Language Learner expert teachers/coaches to select literature from First Book's Marketplace of Books.  Click this LINK to access our gofundme page and please, feel free to share with friends and neighbors.

8/28: (Calling out our First Book Lowell crowd funding link here: www.gofundme.com/firstbooklowell)

We will use any funds raised through gofundme to purchase books that are reflective of the cultural and language diversity in our community.  If 500 people donate just $10, we will meet our goal, and if we exceed our goal we'll be able to purchase even greater numbers of culturally appropriate books for our families and readers.Our goal is to have everything in place for a Book Distribution on Saturday, October 22 at the Rogers STEM Academy. We are appreciative of Superintendent Khelfaoui's support of this effort and especially grateful to Principal Jason McCrevan and his team at the Rogers STEM Academy for offering to host this event. More information on the Book Distribution and how you can help will be coming in a future post.It takes a village, or in Lowell's case, a city to make this endeavor a success. We are counting on everyone to help our village bring books to our children that will embrace the diversity of cultures and languages of our community.

What Defines A "Good" School?

Recently, the Boston Globe published a letter from Joy Robinson-Lynch positing that if Boston needs more available spots in classical education schools (like Boston Latin), the school department might consider creating them.  After all, Boston Public Schools certainly know how to run a successful classical education institution - they've had years to practice and refine that.Framing that thought in terms of Lowell's local school issues, I wonder if in Lowell the same thought should apply. Looking at the Wait Lists for our Lowell Public Schools also indicate that some schools in Lowell are more sought after than others. If there is an abundance of students waiting to attend a middle school like the Daley Middle School, shouldn't there be some thought into why that one school is in high demand? What is it that makes the Daley so desirable? Is the the leadership at the school? The culture? The academics? The staff?  Or is it something else?I taught for 5 years at the Cardinal O'Connell School when it was a Pre-K to Grade 4 elementary school. As an older school, the building itself had some charming quirks, but it also had a great leadership team and a caring faculty who, because of the small size of the school, really knew each and every student. What it didn't have was a cafeteria.  Sometimes when a family left for the (new-at-the-time) Lincoln School, that would be the reason given for transferring. Fortunately, not everyone valued separate lunch space as a deciding factor in a child's educational success.Is it just a perception or is there something tangibly identifiable that sets apart the schools perceived to be desirable? That's something that may be explored further under a new assessment model being considered by a consortium of school districts from across Massachusetts. Measuring positivity in a school's culture may be more difficult to quantify, but it is equally important to the overall picture of whether or not a school is a success. What are those factors that families value that fall outside of numbers and test scores?Are we ready to use more measures to define good schools? I hope so!  

School Committee Meeting, 18 May 2016

School Committee Meeting, 18 May 2016All presentBetween Tuesday’s City Council Meeting and Wednesday’s School Committee Meeting, Mayor Kennedy has done a yeoman’s job of navigating through some very highly charged Public Comment sessions.The agenda included a Public Hearing on Inter-District School Choice which quickly morphed into comment on Item 10, the Policy Subcommittee’s Report of Monday, May 16, 2016.Special Order of BusinessMayor Kennedy mentions there are 10 speakers registered to speak about Item 2016/134, Inter-District School Choice; however, after the first speaker, it was pointed out to him by Robert Gignac that many of the speakers were here to advocate for/against the policy of allowing out-of-district children of Lowell Public School staff to be educated by the Lowell Schools. I would urge anyone interested in both sides of this issue to find the LTC meeting replay (tape) and listen to the first hour of the meeting for yourself.In the end, the School Committee adopted a substitute motion. They have decided to keep the current number of students (grandfathered) for one year and allow them to attend the schools they have been attending. There will be no increase to the out-of-district student pool (freezing the incoming) and the basic policy stands until Fall 2017 when the School Committee intends to have a new/revised policy in place, possibly attaching allowance of out-of-district children of staff based on a still to be developed contractual policy.Discussing the placement out-of-district (OOD) students of employees in Lowell’s public schools is one that has long been overdue. The issue has been percolating since it first came to wider attention last Fall.  According to the meeting discussion, in 2010 when Dr. Chris Scott was Superintendent, a written policy was floated and referred to Subcommittee. What happened after that seems to be a mystery. I have reviewed the list of open motions submitted by Dr. Khelfaoui in October 2015 and there is no specific mention of an open motion of this nature (although there were at least 2 motions calling for reports investigating changes to School Zones and possibly vacating the School Desegregation Plan).The current policy seems to be more “past practice” than formal policy.  According to several speakers at this meeting, the practice goes back more than 20 years. If that is true, it was not well known, at least by this Blowellian. So why would it become a more prominent issue at this time? Here’s why I think this issue has bubbled up: funding, space, and a intra-district school choice plan that needs an overhaul.Money: With the Commonwealth’s habitual underfunding of Foundation Budget calculations, the monies available from Chapter 70 (the Commonwealth) to educate students are well below reasonable. Significant shortfalls put undue strain on local school budgets in cities like Lowell where the difference is unlikely to be made up through increased property taxes (nor should it when the Commonwealth purposefully calculates expenses like Health Benefits of teaching staff at 140% under actual cost). Just an FYI, that each area of the Commonwealth’s Chapter 70 calculations are similarly off. So right away, Lowell starts out without adequate financial assistance from the Commonwealth and the penny-pinching begins. In the words of Cindy Lauper, “Money changes everything”. If the Lowell Public Schools had plenty of money to work with would educating 36 out-of-district students be so contentious? Probably not.Space The space crisis at the Middle School is highlighting the need to accommodate increasing student population - there’s not enough room for everyone and the District is in crisis mode trying to figure this out.  Class sizes at the Middle School level are going to be very challenging for the next 4-5 years. There also exists competition to ensure students are placed in a “good” school - the waitlist for the Daley School is reported to be about 70 students per grade. The lack of enough space for everyone which will likely lead to ridiculous class sizes is compounded by wait lists at plum school placements.School Choice/Wait Lists And finally, the Intra-District School Choice policy is overdue for a major review.  There have been several comments over the process of adopting budgets and reducing costs regarding the creation of new neighborhood school zones.  I believe there is a pending motion to explore the legalities and options to do so.  In addition to looking at zones and placements, though, the School Department needs to get a firm handle on where students reside and the use of false addresses (using a grandparent or daycare/afterschool care home address as student residence when the student resides in another town for example). This is a link is documents about the School Desegregation Plan are found on the LPS website.One aspect of School choice that should be looked at immediately is the Wait List. The list process is confusing and so that confusion and lack of transparency can make the process seem rigged.  Mr. Hoey himself has admitted he has advocated for someone’s placement himself. I am sure he was not alone in this.One additional thought. It makes me wonder why ALL Lowell Middle Schools, or elementary schools, aren’t as sought after as the one or two perceived to be “the best”.  What is it about the Daley Middle School (culture? leadership? student demographics? parent support?) that creates the demand? Can the Daley’s Success be replicated and how? I sincerely feel for the children caught up in this whether they are children from a neighborhood unable to attend their Zone School or are students of staff from out of district who are now acclimated to their current school placement. As Mr. Gignac pointed out, they haven’t done anything that was not allowed.The second Special Order of Business was recognition of Onotse Omoyeni as the 2016 Princeton Prize recipient for the Boston Area. Given her role as a leader for Lowell High School during this year when racial tensions have been at the forefront, this award is well deserved.Motions2016/196 (Mayor Kennedy) was to appoint Steve Gendron to be a member of the Lowell High School Designer Selection team.2016/199 (Ms. Doherty) was to request a report from the Superintendent on short-term and long term student population trends possibly providing insight into population trends, class sizes, building capacity and transportation needs.Reports of the Superintendent2016/190 Interdistrict School Choice. For 2016-17, Lowell High (only) will participate. The program will involve no more than 30 seats at Grades 9-12.You may be wondering why Lowell does not just apply School Choice to all grade levels and “solve” the issue of non-reimbursement of employee OOD students.  A legal ruling clarified this: if School Choice is invoked, there is no “special category” of students (i.e., students of employees) that can take precedence over any other out of district applicant.  If more families apply for School Choice in Lowell than are allowed seats, there must be a lottery. This does not ensure the employee’s student would have a seat at any Lowell School.  Meeting adjourned. Meeting notes can be found here.

Budget Meeting Part 2, 11 May 2016

School Committee Public Budget Hearing, Part 211 May 2015All members present.The Budget Hearing was taped for later broadcast. The originally proposed budget can be found on the LPS website here.  Changed budget allocations will hopefully be published sooner rather than later because there were many, MANY changes as the budget numbers were revised to reflect suggestions from the School Committee.  The Committee continued the detailed budget analysis and approval process, reserving the last part of the meeting for LPS Administration responses to queries. Process begins on Page 37 of the Superintendent’s Proposed Budget document (Account 5100/5200).Mr. Gignac asked whether or not Mr. Frisch had reached out to the City Auditor regarding legalities of using monies from Food Service Revolving Account to offset the salaries of two Health/Nutrition Teachers. When Mr. Frisch said he had not, Mr. Gignac said that he had done so and had discovered that using Revolving Account monies for teaching salaries was not allowable. After brief discussion, motions made to realign offset from Food Service Revolving Account to Account 2300 to Account 1400 (page 18, 23, and page 37).During discussion of Account 5300 (Rentals), Mr. Hoey commented that he was against paying rent and that the LPS Central Office location on Merrimack Street was not a good use for Downtown Lowell storefront location.  His suggestion was that, in the process of either locating space for other school programs or in the process of the High School building/renovation project, some land/space be located for Central Offices.  Both Mr. Gendron and Mayor Kennedy spoke in favor of the Merrimack Street offices as a viable solution (for the present) and cited the advantages to Downtown businesses by having a School Department presence on Merrimack Street.The School Committee Suspense Acvount (9000) was adjusted several times over the past two meeting to account for a teacher’s salary that had been listed in two places. A line item request for an allocation for Choral Music budget was offered by Mr. Descoteaux at this meeting. There were also adjustments to accounts impacting the Suspense Account that had been approved on May 9.  Some monies remain in the account (approximately $183.9 K).The Committee explored using a significant amount ($95K for salary + benefits) to reinstate a crisis social worker at the High School.  The Committee thought this cut would have significant impact on improvements to things such as school attendance; however Ms. Durkin and Dr. Khelfaoui explained that while cutting a social worker would be difficult, there would be 6 still at the High School who would realign their work to the budget realities. The current Suspense Account balance is being held pending the settlement of the Clerk’s contract negotiations; however, the School Committee agreed that, should a surplus remain at the close of 2015-16, cuts to Lowell High custodial staff, clerks, and academic positions would be revisited.After a brief discussion regarding the number of FTE between comparison years, the Committee votes 7-0 to approve the budget as depicted on p 15 ($158,445,232). This total was composed of the City of Lowell contribution of $19,856,851 ($12,037,191 Cash + $7,819,660 Transportation) plus Chapter 70 Aid from the Commonwealth of $138,588,381.

---

Discussion/Answers to questions posed on Monday night included clarification of the regular education transportation budgeted amount ($7,819,660). The Committee had questioned this amount as it represented a reduction from 2015-16, yet increased transportation to accommodate students attending the Wang and Rogers Grade 5 (Bubble Classroom Accommodations) would make the budget number seem impossible.John Descoteaux explained the District was entering the fifth and final year of the contract with the bus contractor which would result in a stepped increase of about $50,000. However, relief in the form of an effort by the Governor to reduce homeless transportation costs is expected to yield a savings of $80,000; the net effect would be a $30,000 reduction in regular education transportation costs.Additional conversation included input from both Mr. Descoteaux and Central Office Administration and focused on a need to have a more comprehensive, complete plan for dealing with space needs to accommodate the 2016-17 anticipated increase in students at the start of each school year (about 200 students) PLUS the increase in middle school population resulting from bubble classes moving from elementary to middle school over the next 5 years. Some suggestions needing further research might include:a move toward neighborhood schools OR increasing school zones (currently 2 plus City Wide). Changing zoning and school assignments action may necessitate vacating the desegregation order under which the school system currently operates. Some possible ramifications of changing such an action may include:

• an effect on obtaining aid through school building assistance fund,
• disruption to families who would be moved out of current zones into newly configured ones
• effect on parochial school students who access regular education transportation system

Mr. Gignac and Ms. Doherty both expressed concern over populating the Rogers STEM school Grade 5 classrooms. As available space currently stands, there would be no room at the Rogers STEM school for next year's fifth grade to continue in the same school for Grade 6 (or 7 or 8). This needs to be expressly communicated to parents. In other words, any student who attends the Rogers for Grade 5 next year should be prepared to be moved to another school for Grade 6.This conversation led to a discussion of class sizes at the largest middle schools and what contingencies the LPS might have should there not be enough interest/enrollment to populate 2 classrooms at the Rogers STEM next year.  The administration has considered this and could make a decision to add paraprofessionals in place of one teacher at the Rogers; doing so would reduce numbers at the most populated Grade 5s (Daley, Robinson, Wang).Mr. Hoey also commented that he has received many calls regarding the Wait List and transparency of the same. The administration stated that a review of this school assignment procedures is in process of being addressed. Mr. Gignac, Ms. Martin, and Mr. Gendron expressed that a timeline for implementing any changes to accommodate the Bubble Classroom (Grade 5) in 2016-17 needs to be developed and known soon.Another lengthy discussion took place regarding cutting positions at the high school. There was much concern that changing the Social Worker/Crisis Teams would impact the notable success with students who are at risk of dropping out or for those with attendance issues.  The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Student Services both feel that, while this is unpalatable, Lowell High School has made the best of the need to cut a position in this area. Mr. Gignac expressed concern that the High School was shouldering cuts in support staff (custodial, clerk) which could possibly be alleviated by looking at a slight class size increase (LHS class sizes will be less than those at Middle School). Mr. Frisch offered that, should a 2015-16 surplus be found after the school year closes, the decision to cut support staff in any of these positions could possibly be changed. There was a motion made to refer a strategy for this to the Lowell High School Subcommittee.Meeting video is now available on the LPS website. Click here and scroll down to the May 11 meeting.

Public Budget Hearing, 09 May 2016

School Committee Public Budget Hearing09 May 2015[EDITED TO INCLUDE] LTC Taped the hearing and it can be found on this weblink.  Click on May 9 videolink.All members present.The Budget Hearing was taped for later broadcast. The originally proposed budget can be found on the LPS website here.  The Finance Department link for the Lowell Schools is here. Changed budget allocations will hopefully be published sooner rather than later.As this was on record as a public input session, there were several participants who spoke during the beginning of the meeting when public input was invited.

• Susan Orton, a parent of two students at the Middle School level spoke about the positive impact on her family and special needs child in this child’s success. Her student is assigned to a substantially separate classroom, and is experiencing school success credited to a strong program and the expertise of in-district autism staff.
• Ellen Romanowsky, a CSA teacher at the Bailey School detailed burnout of teachers within this type of program and advocated for increasing the staff so that student to staff ratios were more in line with meeting the needs of this challenging population.
• Lisa Tenczar, a teacher in a substantially separate program in the Lowell Schools spoke about needs for expertise of behavior specialists and how classroom-specialist collaboration makes for successful support of students’ needs.
• Shon Texiera made an impassioned plea for increasing the in-district program. Mr. Texiera is the parent of a young student whose needs are currently met through participation in CREST Collaborative program and must be bused to Methuen daily.

In response to this commentary, both Jeannine Durkin (Assistant Superintendent for Student Support) and Jennifer McCrystal (Director of Special Education) reiterated that the LPS is committed to expanding in-house placement of students; however there are necessary considerations for space and safety that need to be addressed.Returning the budget, Mr. Frisch, CFO, began by stating that budget decisions were a function of the Superintendent’s Strategic Plan with recommendations for changes made by an administrator of each program affected. After the last budget presentation and Finance Subcommittee meeting there were some adjustments made to the originally proposed budget including adding back Lowell High positions in World Language and English, changes to the merger of the MCC Bridge Program with the Cardinal O’Connell School Program, reducing the number of positions for coaches from the originally request, lowering the Superintendent’s Office Supply Budget and use of School Lunch Program funds for some line items.Starting with page 16 in the Superintendent’s Recommended FY2017 Budget, the School Committee commented and asked for clarifications on changes line by line.  Some noted that the Year to Date (YTD) expenditures seemed significantly off (example under Line 1100, School Committee memberships were budgeted at $6,000 for 2015-16, yet show spent amount at $100). As the Committee reviewed the recommendations, questionable numbers for YTD expenses were listed several times causing the Committee members to ask both Mr. Frisch and Dr. Khelfaoui to review questionable items with answers available by the next meeting (5/11).There was a note made that, as the Bridge Program will be transitioned more slowly, the salaries of the personnel currently picked up by Middlesex Community College will become the responsibility of the Lowell Schools. Most, if not all, of the staff are paid at a rate below the Collective Bargaining amounts. The United Teachers of Lowell will need to allow the transitioning Bridge staff members to be paid at lower rates for the transition year. (not yet assured, however the Superintendent seems confident that it will be allowed and the following year affected staff will be paid according to Collective Bargaining).Class size numbers caused by the promotion of the Bubble Class (currently in Grade 4) was a concern. The numbers (ranging from 24 at the Pyne Arts to 31 at the Daley) do not reflect any students transferring to the Rogers STEM classrooms (2 Grade 5 classes to open in the Fall 2016). The School Committee concern is that students may not wish to attend a school outside of their neighborhood assignment in Grade 5, or that the majority of students assigned to the Rogers will be newcomers; the final tally after recruitment to the Rogers Grade 5 is still to be determined. Mr. Gignac did not vote to approve this budgeted account due to his concerns about large class sizes and the need for further discussion to address the same.Both monies from an account with Comcast and the school lunch program were used to offset some expenses throughout the proposed budget.  The Comcast account, in particular was mentioned as having a significant balance which, prior to this budget, had not been tapped.Surprisingly the Transportation budget (Item 3300) was for less than the past year (2015-16: $3,399,900 proposed 2016-17 $$3,369,500). Even with what may be increased transport of students (opening of Grade 4 and Grade 5 at the Rogers was cited), the Superintendent and CFO both feel the number is accurately pegged as the transportation company will not replace buses as aggressively as in the past.Under Account 3500, Athletics and Student Activities, there was an increase in coaches to include 10 new coaching stipends. Ms. Martin questioned this and expressed that adding athletic coaching positions while cutting academic staff (paras, teachers) seemed ill-timed. Additionally the line item for CBOs (Community Based programming such as the after-school Y or CTI before/after school programs) was eliminated.During discussion of Item 4000, Custodial and Security, the elimination of custodians at the High School was discussed as well as the inclusion of two plumber positions and HVAC technician at LHS.  The Facility Director position returned to a single K-12 position (was two: a K-8 and a LHS). Mr. Hoey proposed that a stipend ($25,000) be given to two custodians who could perform facility director functions as part of a career ladder.  There was much discussion about the building maintenance and city-side vs. school-side maintenance and charge-backs. In the end, this budget item was approved 6 to 1 with Mr. Hoey voting no.As it was after 10 pm, the meeting was adjourned with three additional budget items to be discussed (starting on Page 38 of the proposed budget) and several questions to be answered. The Budget Discussions will continue on Wednesday, May 11 at 7:15 pm, Rogers School (taped for later broadcast).

School Committee Meeting, 04 May 2016

School Committee Meeting, 04 May 2016Finance Subcommittee Meeting, 04 May 2016All members presentThis was a marathon session, especially for School Committee members present for both the regular meeting and finance subcommittee Q&A session, as well as the school department personnel.  An executive session was sandwiched in between the two public meetings - three and a half hours. Meeting opened with recognition for the LHS Air Force Junior ROTC Drill Team (AFJROTC).Public ParticipationStephanie Sodre, Daley School teacher and parent of a preschool student, spoke in advocacy for Motion 2016/172, policy for placement of students within Lowell Schools for school personnel residing out of district.Paul Georges, President of United Teachers of Lowell (UTL), speaks on two motions to be presented: 2016/180 (career pathways for paraprofessionals) and 2016/186 (offering a contract to Dr. Khelfaoui).  In the first instance, Mr. Georges reminds the school committee of the successful paraprofessional program which resulted in training and hiring new Special Education Teachers. This opportunity has been in existence for a number of years. He respectfully suggests that the new motion consider amending the language to include other school personnel who may wish to pursue licensure such as the custodians and/or cafeteria staff.Mr. Georges also spoke in support of offering the Superintendent a contract as opposed to the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). He reminds the school committee that the position of Superintendent was originally advertised as having a 3-year contract, but at the time of final interviews, the candidates were publicly asked if they would work “without a contract”. Mr. Georges reminds the committee that to do so was not only unfair, but ethically questionable and may, in the future, result in fewer candidates for advertised administrators such as superintendents.Motions:There were five motions presented; one, the motion to offer the Superintendent a 3-year contract, generated the longest discussion.

• 2016/160 (Ms. Doherty) - request for information/report on the Lowell School’s civics curriculum.
• 2016/180 (Ms. Doherty) - career path for paraprofessions (See notes following)
• 2016/185 (Mr. Hoey) - policy mandating that Lowell residents are guaranteed interviews when applying for positions.
• 2016/186 (Mr. Hoey) - negotiation of a 3-year contract for the Superintendent
• 2016/187 (Ms. Martin) - report to full committee regarding evaluations (in aggregate) of LPS principals and staff using the Massachusetts Evaluation system protocols.

Ms. Doherty’s second motion (2016/180) re-emphasized and expanded on a valuable resource within the Lowell Schools - the paraprofessional staff (see Public Participation comment by Mr. Georges suggesting that this benefit should be extended to include other support staff).  This motion asks the the administration continue to tap into that resource by developing a diverse teaching staff through a partnership with Middlesex Community College, University of Massachusetts Lowell and Lowell Public Schools. It expands on this idea by including potential for development from our high school students considering education as a career and Middlesex Community College students enrolled in one of MCC's education programs (Early Childhood Education, Early Childhood Education Transfer, and Elementary Education Transfer majors).Developing future educators by identifying students in high school who may be interested in a career in education, and encouraging those students in community college programs such as ones offered by Middlesex Community College, seems like a terrific idea for recruiting locally committed people to a career in education. While University of Massachusetts Lowell’s College of Education has offered Masters Degree level programming, Ms. Doherty suggested that a Bachelor’s education degree program is under consideration for the future.  If so, that would complete the Initial Certification pathway for Lowell residents starting with Pre-K through Grade 12, to Associates degree (MCC) to Bachelor’s degree (UML).  An additional enticement for potential education majors is that Middlesex Community will participate in the tuition-rebate program announced last week by Governor Baker. (link here)To clarify, however, our current paraprofessionals are highly qualified and must meet some exacting credentials already (2010 No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified).  These include:

• a high school diploma or equivalent AND
• an Associates Degree OR 48 credit hours at an institute of higher learning OR successful completion of the Para-Pro or WorkKeys test

Ms. Doherty’s motion will need to include the above requirements mandated by NCLB; however, it is both interesting and creative and should help Lowell continue to locate and hire quality candidates for teaching.The motion receiving the longest discussion was Mr. Hoey’s suggestion that the Mayor enter into negotiation with Dr. Khelfaoui. Some clarification was offered that made the language and intent of the motion fit better with negotiation process, namely, to replace the wording so that the full School Committee, and not just the Mayor, would participate in negotiations (as is their obligation and duty) and to replace the specifics of number of years with a more flexible term, “multi-year”.  By way of clarification, Dr. Khelfaoui repeated last night that contract or no contract really made no real impact on his superintendency - he was more interested in doing his job well.It seemed to come as a surprise to some Committee members that the Superintendent of Schools also has a regulated/mandated evaluation cycle (see the whole complicated Massachusetts Educator Evaluation on DESE website) just as teachers and principals do.  The cycle is a two-year cycle. Section II of the Educator Evaluation Framework applies to Superintendents and can be found in this link which includes the rubric to be applied. Throughout year 1 of the cycle, the superintendent collects evidence toward his/her goals; those goals were developed at the start of the cycle in conjunction with the School Committee.  At the end of year 1, a formative assessment of the Superintendent is made listing areas where goals have been met, are on the way to being met, or need additional work. This gives the superintendent (or educator, as teachers are subject to the same process) time to make mid-cycle corrections as needed.During year 2, the Superintendent continues to work toward goals and collect evidence of reaching them. At the end of year 2 a summative evaluation report of performance is made by the School Committee using the Educator Evaluation Framework rubric. Continuation of service or contracts are thought to be a natural fit at this point.  Currently in year 1 of his evaluation cycle, Dr. Khelfaoui suggested that contract negotiations might be better served if tied to the Evaluation process mandated by the Commonwealth.Reports of the SuperintendentThere were five reports from the Superintendent’s office:

• 2016/172 Policy for Admission of Non-Resident School Employees (see packet). Referred to Policy Subcommittee. There was some discussion during the meeting about the legalities of requiring Special Education services to become out-of-pocket expenses paid by the employee should the sending district not pay (whether or not a sending district pays for student is tied to School Choice, currently proposed only for Grades 9-12).
• 2016/178 Response to 7/15/15 motion for Lincoln School Community Garden
• 2016/182 Community Service Day projects. Accepted as Report of Progress.
• 2016/183 STEM Update. Ongoing meetings have taken place in order to extend STEM programs through High School. Community resources are being included (such as Makerspace). Training for LHS personnel will take place over summer in anticipation of roll-out to incoming Freshmen in Fall 2016.
• 2016/174 Personnel Report. To date, 29 retirees, 11 resignations, 1 new hire (Mr. Frisch).

New Business2016/136, District School Choice: Dr. Khelfaoui is proposing School Choice be in effect for high school grades 9-12 only in 2016-17. 30 seats possibly available. Public Hearing on 5/18 at 6:30 pm . The date would indicate this discussion will be included in the May 18 regular School Committee meeting.2016/184, Permission to post Coordinator of Early Childhood EducationAfter approval of Convention/Conference Requests and Professional Personnel requests, the Committee went into Executive Session.Regular School Committee Meeting adjourned from Executive Session. Finance Subcommittee followed.Meeting packet for regular School Committee is here.

---

Finance Subcommittee Meeting (begins at approximately 9 pm)Members: Robert Gignac (chair), Jackie Doherty, Steve GendronThe School Committee had made several requests for additional budget information during the Superintendent’s Budget Presentation of April 25. A copy of the proposed budget is found here.Jeannine Durkin (Asst. Superintendet Student Support Services) and Jennifer McCrystal (Director of Special Education) clarified and explained their thinking in generating the budget amount for both out-of-district student SpED placements and the consolidation plan for bringing more out-of-district placed Special Education students within Lowell Schools.  The concept of the state’s Circuit Breaker  accounting and contribution was explained. Ms. McCrystal also provided a detailed explanation of the need and request to fund additional Behavioral Analysts (1 currently serves 296 students; this is way beyond reasonable and the proposal is for a certified Behavioral Analyst or BCBA to be shared between an elementary-middle school.)Consideration of revising the Organizational Chart to reflect the responsibilities of an Assistant Business Manager as more complex than supervision of payroll personnel was made by Mr. Gignac. There were also questions about including Public Relations duties in the position of Assistant Human Resources Manager.The consolidation of the Bridge Program (alternative education for at-risk Middle School-aged students currently administered by Middlesex Community College) and the Alternative Education program at the Cardinal O’Connell has been modified in the revised budget to include a one-year transition. The slower roll-out is highly recommended so that a transition period for students, staff and families can be made.The impact of losing teachers at Lowell High (due to unreplaced retirements) was discussed relative to changes in class sizes.CBOs (Community Based Organizations such as CTI or YMCA) was explained as minimal costs incurred due to pass-through contributions.Handling the impact of the 2016-17 Grade 5 bubble was discussed. Once the budget is approved, there will be an effort to “recruit” families to fill two Grade 5 classrooms at the STEM school; Wang (2 additional classrooms) will be no problem to fill. John Descoteaux from Central Office offers that there will be minimal impact on bus costs. The rest of the bubble class will be absorbed (class sizes will range between 27 and 32).Meeting adjourned. Next budget hearing and discussion, with opportunity for Public Input, is scheduled for MONDAY, May 9 at 7:15 pm, Rogers School Television Studio. Final Budget Meeting (adoption) is scheduled for WEDNESDAY, May 11 at 7:15 pm, Rogers School Television StudioLink to Amelia Pak-Harvey's coverage is here.

Citizens for Public Schools, 26 April 2016

Driven by an $18 million advertising campaign, those in favor of lifting the current cap on charter school seats have launched an all-out effort to increase the number of seats allocated to charter schools. This ballot initiative is one of several state-driven mandates, ruling, issues - whatever you choose to call them - that is spurring Lowellians to become more vocal advocates for our Lowell Public Schools.Last Tuesday, Lisa Guisbond (Executive Director) and Alain Jehlen of Citizens for Public Schools led a discussion and information session about about the impact of not only this ballot question, but other state education policies as well. Should it be successful, the "lift the cap" ballot initiative has the potential of transferring funding away from the Lowell Public Schools.  Why does this matter to Lowell and what impact would increasing seats have on school programs and budgets?Lisa Guisbond began the session by giving an overview of how and why charter schools began. Starting with their inception in 1993, publicly funded charter schools  have morphed over the last 20-plus years from  schools set up to try to impact learning through  innovation to schools often times managed by corporations. In Lowell, we have both models of charter schools - one run independently and another set up as a SABIS school.While Commonwealth Charter Schools are set up as chartered public schools and receive funding from the local community, there are several concerns. Accountability to the local community and demographics of the student body which often does not represent the traditional public school student body are among two of many concerns.Most communities have a limit of 9% of the foundation enrollment on charter schools seats; however, some communities - and Lowell falls in this second category - are designated differently and the limit is 18% (double). Lowell currently has 9.2% of its student population attending Commonwealth charter schools so there is room for growth or even new schools to be chartered within the City. Lisa's presentation triggered discussions about who authorizes charter schools (the state Board of Education), the current Commissioner's role in monitoring, governance (appointed boards which do not include representation from the community's governing entities). Therefore unlike traditional public schools where the elected School Committee answers to the public on how public monies are spent or how school policy is overseen, Commonwealth Charter Schools, operate with appointed boards that do not answer to the public funding the school. As Lisa pointed out, there is a prevailing sense of pro-charter support by Governor Baker, Secretary of Education (James Peyser) and the Board of Education, all of whom have had or currently have some connection to Charter Schools through their participation in and/or connections to Charter Schools.Alain Jehlen, a Somerville resident and member of Citizens for Public Schools, presented information regarding how local funding is allocated to charter schools within a district and pointed out that our very own Commonwealth does not always fund (in fact almost never) the state budget adequately to provide the legislated reimbursement to municipal budgets. The trickle down effect of the under-funding is that traditional public school budgets and/or municipalities make up the gap in funds through their own budgets.Thinking about Lowell's budget this current year, about $17 million was paid to charter schools for Lowell students and approximately $3 million was reimbursed by the Commonwealth.  That $3 million was about $1.3 million short of the state's responsibility. When there is a shortfall in the reimbursement funding, the local community must fill the gap between assessed amount and state reimbursement. In other words, a traditional public school program might need to be cut or a municipal service eliminated. Cities and towns often find themselves making difficult financial decisions because the Commonwealth does not live up to its promises.According to the DESE website, Lowell's 2016-17 assessment will be based on 1,494 students enrolled in charter schools (15,300 in traditional public schools) which represents 9.8% of the foundation enrollment.  A District payment of $18,430,028 will be assessed with the mythical reimbursement of $3,708,525 from the Commonwealth IF charter reimbursements are fully funded in the state budget. And if not.... well Lowell, already tightening fiscal belts and consolidating programs, will need to find the difference somewhere in the City's budget.The Q&A session from the group continued discussion about the impact of the ballot initiative fiscally and educationally. Several raised concerns about increasing charter seats and how that might impact the proposed budget for next fiscal year. There was some surprise to learn that if a student is counted as enrolled in a charter school on October 1, but leaves to return to the city's public schools after that, the per pupil funding stays at the charter school until the next school year.There was interest in continuing informational discussions in the near future.If you, or someone you know would like to continue to be informed about this issue, we invite you to email the local group at lowellcps@gmail.com to be added to the email list. Additional information about Citizens for Public Schools and their advocacy efforts can be found on either their Facebook page or on the web at http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org.