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.

Superintendent's Proposed Budget Presentation, 25 April 2016

Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Presentation, April 25, 20165 present, Mr. Gendron absent.There have been many reports that this budget season is going to be a tight one. Although the City has committed to increasing their contribution by $1 million, the school department had recently floated a budget total with an additional $1 million deficit gap.Dr. Khelfaoui was on record as against making up the $1 million deficit through cuts to classroom teaching staff (link to Lowell Sun Article). Most of the reductions proposed are achieved through retirements and some through combining programs. Mr. Frisch who is LPS' Chief Financial Officer, cautions that this budget leaves no room for salary increases in 2017.Budgeting  and Finance BasicsSeveral terms - and the source of funding - were explained by both Dr. Khelfaoui and Mr. Frisch as they introduced the budget document (link at end). For clarity, I’m including parts of that discussion here.Foundation Enrollment: the number of students attending public school in the district on October 1 of the previous year. The enrollment figure for the 2017 budget is based on the October 1, 2015 headcount.Foundation Budget: the amount of money or minimum budget a community is required to spend to ensure a quality education. This is based on the October 1 enrollment from the previous year times the per pupil spending amount, again determined by the Commonwealth.Required Local Contribution: The amount that the community is expected to contribute to the budget. It is determined through CASH + IN KIND services. In Lowell “in kind” services are such things as technology services (ex: payroll, purchasing) and maintenance (ex: plowing)Chapter 70 Aid: This is a dollar amount determined by the Commonwealth and is based on a formula that takes into consideration the financial wealth of a community. The actual amount will be an unknown until the Commonwealth’s 2017 budget is set.The DESE website holds more detail on all school financial terms and calculations.Simply stated, the formula for the School’s Budget is:Chapter 70 Aid + Required Local Contribution = Required Net School SpendingOctober 1 is a significant date in all things education. It is the date on which a school’s headcount is taken (this has been true throughout the 30 years I taught), and it is a significant date for determining not only the minimum budget for a public school district, but also is the basis for charter school assessments (once the headcount is taken in October and the money stays at the school/district no matter where that student may transfer beginning on October 2). NumbersI am certainly a novice at this, but it seems that if you enjoyed algebra and dealing with unknown variables, you will most likely enjoy budgeting for a school system.  The state contribution through Chapter 70 will be an unknown until the Commonwealth’s budget is in place, the “in kind” portion of the City’s contribution can be estimated, can’t be determined until all of those costs have been tallied (example: how much will plowing out schoolyards in 2016-2017 cost?).  Hence, the back-and-forth between City and School Departments.The proposed budget from the Superintendent looks like this:

• Foundation enrollment 15,616 students
• Times per pupil amount from State*
• Equals Foundation Budget for 2017 $183,238,362

• Foundation Budget for 2017 $183,238,362
• Less Chapter 70 aid (preliminary, best estimate to date) $138,588,381
• Required City Contribution $  44,649,981

The City contribution is an approximately $1.5 million increase over the 2016 budget.And now to break out the $44,649,981, because that City Contribution consists of both CASH and IN-KIND contributions. The cost of transportation is broken out separately. For 2017 budgeting, that amount is listed at $7,819,660. City Manager Murphy has committed to a $1 million increase in cash contribution over last year’s cash contribution, making that cash amount $19,856,851.  Breaking away the transportation costs from the cash contribution yields an actual cash contribution of $12,037,191. So,

• City’s Cash Contribution $ 19,856,851
• Less Transportation $   7,891,660
• Net Cash Contribution $ 12,037,191

From here, the City contributes indirectly (in-kind services mentioned above) to a minimum amount of $44,649,981. Those in-kind services could be set higher or end up being more money, but the requirement under state finance is that the City’s contribution is, for now, at least $44,649,981.When the City exceeds school spending, as it did last year, that’s fine; but when the City does not, the underfunded amount rolls over onto the next year’s contribution. Manager Murphy appears committed to meeting the City’s spending requirements. Historically, Lowell has fallen into both categories. A good discussion of the past spending/budgeting cycles are on the first four pages of the Superintendent’s proposed budget <link here>. * The per pupil cost is determined based on many factors, including the economy of the community and the demographics of the students served.  My understanding is that this is not just one number applied across the Commonwealth, but specific to each community. Here’s a link (http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/chapter-cal.pdf) with more detail for this process.What are some of the suggestions for closing the gap between an ideal budget and reality?First and foremost, both Superintendent Khelfaoui and Mr. Frisch stated that this budget is very lean and as efficient as possible. It aligns to the “pillars” of the Superintendent’s Strategic realignment plan (yet to be published, but the references to it throughout the budget are clear). There is no room for raises which should make for interesting bargaining for future negotiations with unions and non-union personnel.Some proposals for solving the cash crunch might include an increase in cash from the City, bringing increased Special Education services within the district so that students with Special Education Plans requiring resources for out-of-district services (placements can range from $55,000 to $83,000 - and up - per student) can receive education services within the Lowell Schools (presumably at a less expensive rate). Lobbying the Lowell state legislative representatives to increase programming dollars from the state to support English Language Learners (ELLs) and Special Education Students and a suggestion from Mayor Kennedy to add school zones to the district so that transportation costs savings would occur (thought to be about $500,000).Some cost savings will be achieved through retirements/attrition and consolidation of programs. The consolidation of the BRIDGE program for at-risk middle school students administered through Middlesex Community College with the Cardinal O’Connell program was discussed. Adding two fifth grade classes to the STEM School and two to the Wang to accommodate the bubble population of the incoming Grade 5 students. Cutting down requested increases in personnel (cutting the request for 21 ELL teachers to 5 for example) and consolidating administrative positions (example: 2 math coordinators will become 1 position) were also mentioned.  Dr. Khelfaoui expressed the hope that the personnel who will be losing current positions will apply for and obtain positions elsewhere within Lowell Public Schools.There will be a need to add some line items in order to achieve the savings expected through consolidations. For example, an Educational Team Chair (ETC) is needed to lessen the case load of Special Education team chairs and 6 certified behavior analysts are needed so that services to students with autism can remain in-district.The school committee had several questions about the impact of these adjustments to programs and staff and other changes in the proposed budget. Those questions and others voiced last night will be further addressed in detail at the Finance Committee Meeting which follows the regularly scheduled School Committee Meeting on Wednesday, May 2.  At that time, more detail about many of the line item changes will be provided.A link to Amelia Pak-Harvey’s Lowell Sun story summarizing the meeting can be found here.The full detail on the proposed budget is on the LPS website.

School Committee Meeting, 06 April 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, April 06, 2016All members present.The Special Order of Business tonight focused on the Kathryn Stoklosa Knowledge Bowl competition, which has been a yearly academic match-up since 1988.  The 2016 winning Wang Middle School Team was featured along with all participants. Congrats to the Wang Team and their coaches and to all the participating teams from Middle Schools around the City. This is a huge undertaking and Carolyn Rocheleau Feeney who organizes the event received well-deserved praise.The Wang Knowledge Bowl Team now continues on to a Regional Knowledge Bowl Competition scheduled for June 6-7 at the Stoklosa School.MotionsThere were 2 motions on the agenda. The motions included:

1. 2016/149: A request to explore the possibility of LPS acquiring the Franco American School building (Mr. Gendron). This motion was rolled into the report of the Facilities Subcommittee (Item 12).
2. 2016/151: A 3-part request to respond to what appears to be an insufficient number of substitute teachers available.  The 3 parts specified inquiries about teacher absentee rates, professional development activities held during the school day, and the substitute pool available. (Ms. Doherty).

This should be an interesting report. As a classroom teacher, and I know many of my colleagues felt similarly, I disliked planning for a substitute teacher. Teaching has changed and unless the substitute has an education background, time away is not very productive. Our curricula are packed. The pressure to keep lessons moving forward in order to keep on target for testing and curricula goals often cannot stand a disruption in the flow of lessons and learning.  Also, given the high level of teaching skills required and differentiation needed to address student needs, keeping students occupied with paperwork and reading from a textbook no longer is a viable option when teacher is out of the classroom. As Mr. Descoteaux commented, other school districts around Lowell are also experiencing a shortage of substitute teachers. The reasons for this are no doubt fairly complicated and may not necessarily be tied to money. Subcommittees2016/137 Mr. Hoey reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, March 15, 2016.  The meeting notes are contained in the packet. This meeting continued discussion and made a recommendation that LPS adhere to state law regarding placement of students in schools.2016/138 Ms. Doherty reported on the Student Support Services Subcommittee meeting of Tuesday, March 29, 2016.  The meeting notes and extensive documentation regarding the LPS Student Restraint policy are contained in the packet. The policy was voted on and accepted by the full committee.  An item regarding planning for Lowell Career Academy as an Innovation School was accepted as a report of progress.2016/147 Mr. Gendron reported on the Facilities Subcommittee meeting of Thursday, March 31, 2016 and presented information about Motion 8, 2016/149, a request to further investigation acquiring the Franco American School to address space issues.Two items from the Subcommittee meeting responded to concerns about open work orders in all schools. Mr. Gendron has a list of prioritized open work orders which should be completed by the end of the school year.  A second item on the subcommittee agenda addressed concerns about transportation safety. John Descoteaux , Family Resource Center Coordinator, requests anyone who observes a bus driver operating unsafely contact him through Central Office so that the issue can be addressed in a timely way.After learning through Mr. Frisch (Chief Financial Officer) that a 2-classroom modular unit planned for installation at the Wang School would cost over $500,000 (not including set up or break down), the Facilities Subcommittee strongly felt it wise to explore other space options to address the burgeoning student population expected at the Middle Schools starting next year and for several years thereafter.  Two parcels, one at the Polish American Veterans Club in Centralville, and the other being the Franco American School, were considered (the Polish American Veterans Club has since been put under agreement and is therefore unavailable). The motion requests continued exploration as to costs.One recent report from the Franco American School Board mentioned that any sale would include keeping the Grotto and Stations of the Cross intact.  That could pose of problem for a public school if negotiations were to be successful.  A second consideration - and an expensive one I think - is that, to my best recollection, the Franco lacks ADA compliance, particularly for classroom spaces.  Retrofitting those items might be prohibitive. As was pointed out at last evening's meeting, there will be little chance of obtaining school building funds from the Commonwealth as the high school project is already in the pipeline.Reports of the SuperintendentSusan Maze-Rohstein, from Northeastern’s Restorative Justice program reported on the activities and recommendations coming from the program’s interactions with LHS groups following last Fall’s racial incident.  The full report is available in the meeting packet.  Referred to the Lowell High Subcommittee for further discussion of recommendations made by participants.Carolyn Rocheleau Feeney reported on an extension of the 21st Century Grant to include 2 additional weeks of activities at the Morey and Shaughnessy School Summer programs for 2016.  The program has brought positive gains as seen through reading scores either increasing or through minimizing summer learning loss.  While this program is grant funded and grants only can be stretched so far, it would be wonderful for all of our students if such opportunities existed at every Lowell school.New Business

• A grant award for the Wang School was accepted.
• Aramark, the current food service vendor, recommended to authorize RFP for a 1-year $14.757 million contract (with a $1.7 million revenue share returned to Lowell). The Aramark contract has 2 1-year extensions built in (revenue share would be the same).

The RFP was reviewed by Mr. Frisch, and representation from Human Services, elementary, middle and high school administration.  While Aramark has agreed to be part of a monthly advisory meeting which will include parents, I wonder why no parent representation was present during the RFP process.  As I understand it, several parents have concerns about the quality, sourcing (local?) and food service in general and, in my opinion, would have brought an important viewpoint to the discussions.Following approval of Convention Requests, the School Committee went into Executive Session to review Collective Bargaining proposals and positions. Meeting adjourned from Executive Session.The meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 16 March 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 All members present.Item 19, a motion by Ms. Martin meant to highlight innovative curricula in the Lowell Schools, was taken out of order.  The featured school, The Pyne Arts (link here), is a Grades PK-8 magnet school. It is unique because of the grade span that the school includes (most Lowell schools are PK-4 or 5-8) and its focus on integration of the arts into their curriculum.What makes these types of presentations particularly powerful is when the school articulates what makes them unique. During last evening’s presentation viewers were treated to a great performance by a choral group and a video of the students engaged in drama and other arts programs. The Pyne Arts is known for their parent engagement as well. They have an excellent Math Resource page (view link here) with a rich collection of explanations and information helpful to parents supporting their children, as well as up-to-date and well-written parent information (click on Parent and Student link in the banner).  My only suggestion for scheduling featured school presentations in the future is to give a timeframe (15, 20, 30 minutes?). Devoting almost an hour to a spotlight presentation made last night’s meeting quite lengthy. Providing a time limit might be useful in distilling presentations to the uniqueness of each school.MotionsThere were 5 motions on the agenda. The motions included:

1. 2016/118: A request that the Transportation Subcommittee address bus contract and safety concerns (Mr. Gignac).
2. 2016/119: A request for a joint meeting of the Facilities Subcommittee (School Committee)and Municipal Facilities Subcommittee (City Council). Parent Tim Blake spoke about a recent issue at the Sullivan School illuminating concerns about the building. (Mr. Gignac and Mr. Gendron)
3. 2016/120: A request for an update from the superintendent on standard-based report cards (Ms. Doherty) 
4. 2016/127: Request Subcommittee meeting to consider making a museum of educational history at the former Elliott School (Mayor Kennedy)
5. 2016/128: Request for review of the safety policy by Subcommittee on Safety & Discipline, Alternative School Program, and Student Support Services & Special Education.  Parent Laura Ortiz spoke about the need to review and update the current policy (this policy mainly refers to food allergens) to provide safety measures and access to needed medication (inhalers, epi-pens) for all students who may be anaphylaxic regardless of the allergen.

SubcommitteesMr. Hoey reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting (15 March 2016) during which the policy for placing children of staff who live out of district in Lowell Schools was discussed.  Currently, there are 32 students (I also heard the number 35 mentioned at one point in this discussion) who live out-of-district but are educated in the Lowell Schools because a parent is a Lowell Public School staff member. This policy has been regarded as a means of retaining staff. A problem happens when a out-of-district child of a staff member is placed in a school for which there is high interest and a waiting list. There have been some instances where a resident requesting the same school as a “first pick” is put on a waiting list. Additionally, there are concerns with regard to availability of space as the district experiences growth a particular levels (Middle School in particular) which may impact space available and class size.Mr. Hoey’s subcommittee discussed three options during their meeting Tuesday night and brought forward one in which the committee would adhere to the state law regarding school choice. This option includes giving Lowell residents first choice in school seat openings (children of staff placed as space allows), engaging the funding options of School Choice, and making the Wait Lists transparent.After much discussion, the motion was amended to include a timeline for reviewing the policy with school department, school committee, and law department input by the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year.  Questions were raised about how to phase in any change in policy fairly, and the importance of reaching out to affected staff so they can plan accordingly.Reports of the SuperintendentSchool Year 2016-2017 calendars as well as the budget deliberation calendar/schedule were approved. Lowell Career Academy reported on their efforts to provide education and support for disengaged students.New Business

• Budget transfer
  • $800,000 (from School Committee Suspense Account to Salary Account for recent settlement of grievances), and
  • $82,217 (from School Food Revolving Account to General Fund as a result of a DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Schools) audit)
• Acceptance of Grant ($2,5000) from Kronos for IDEA camp
• Permission to post Interim Grant Manager Position

Following approval of Convention Requests and Civil Service Requests, the School Committee went into Executive Session to review Collective Bargaining proposals and positions. Meeting adjourned from Executive Session.The meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 02 March 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, March 2, 2016All members present.This meeting, the first since February 3 due to the Winter vacation week cancellation, was extra lengthy - 37 items. The highlights are posted below.  Special Order of Business: Spotlight on Youth Mental Health First AidThis new program was funded through a $100,000 federal grant and trains staff and community members to recognize and offer resources to youth who need to be connected to mental health supports.  Not only school staff, but community members (Middlesex Community College, UTEC, Public Health nurses, Boys and Girls Club, etc.) receive an 8-hour training and in turn, become resources at their organizations for staff not yet trained.  The grant represents a collaborative effort between Project Learn and the community.No one wants to miss the signs of a mental health trauma and wonder later if there was some resource that could have helped a youth in crisis. This program sounds like it has been and will continue to be a strong support for our community’s youth who need mental health support. Although the grant funding for this program is coming to an end, the coordinators expressed confidence that the “train the trainer” model will allow the program to continue through the use of  trained in-house expertise and possibly a series of videos.MotionsThere were 5 motions on the agenda, although one (2016/91) was withdrawn (no reason given).Given the revival and renewed interest in the Citywide Parent Council, Mr. Descoteaux and Ms. Doherty, requested (2016/86) a report detailing the parent involvement in each school along with meeting times. The Superintendent’s Report (2016/101) on Parent Involvement provided some detail on the state of parent involvement at this point.  Both Mr. Descoteaux and Ms. Doherty stressed that School Site Councils (a blend of school staff and parents) and other parent involvement-based groups are mandated as part of education reform.Several schools did not submit information or submitted incomplete information pointing to the need to refocus on including parents in both school-based and city-wide decision-making. Dr. Khelfaoui was quite adamant that all schools will renew their efforts to include parents in schools.Although participation in parent involvement groups have, over time fallen off, in the past, parent input was routinely sought for such things as the school’s USIP (Unified School Improvement Plan) as well as more routine decision making such as evening events (game nights, curriculum informational nights, etc.). My opinion is that the success of any school or classroom depends on a trusting, shared relationship between parent, school (teacher), and student. It has been my experience that most parents want to know about their child’s education and want to be a part of it no matter the life circumstances that might be interferring. Renewing the Citywide Parents, increasing parent advocacy and support, and insisting that every school include parents in meaningful school discussion and decision-making will make Lowell schools strong and vibrant.Two additional motions (2016/90 and 2016/93) addressed the next school budget cycle.  Mr. Gary Frisch, the new school business administrator, has committed to preparing a draft budget by mid-April so that the School Committee can go about reviewing and approval processes prior to May 2.  Because of the tight deadline, the mid-April School Committee meeting (previously cancelled), may need to be reinstated.The final motion (2016/97) by Ms. Martin requested a standing Curriculum and Instruction subcommittee time; however, after much discussion by the committee and clarification of the protocol for scheduling subcommittee meetings as standing meetings by Mayor Kennedy, the original motion was withdrawn and a substitute motion for including the full School Committee in some activities of the subcommittee was approved.Reports of the SuperintendentThere were 12 reports from the Superintendent. Due to some confusion over 2017 February School Vacation, the School Committee meeting dates and School Calendar for 2016-17 may contain an error (to be reviewed and presented for final approval at next meeting). Several reports were responses to motions made by former Mayor Elliott about scholarship information (it sounded like communication of the two scholarship opportunities may have unintentionally slipped and that this has been remedied for the future). There was also a response to Mayor Kennedy’s STEM curriculum proposal. This information is thoroughly outlined in the packet for those wondering what STEM offerings are currently offered and what the plans for increase STEM coursework. Additionally, Assistant Superintendent Durkin offered an update (2016/89) on the LPS response to complying with new (January 1, 2016) regulations from DESE regarding student restraint.  However, the reports (see packet) are quite lengthy and the Committee needed more time to process the reports. By working throughout the  fall, the LPS has addressed the new regulations and they are compliant with the new regulations; however, the report was referred to Student Support subcommittee prior to formal acceptance.Two programs impacting student success were highlighted in this portion of the meeting: the Dropout and Recovery Program (2016/96) and Middle School Intervention Program and Policy (2016/102). There is plenty of statistical detail for both programs in the packet; however the presentation for both of these programs was quite impressive.  With collaboration and persistent effort to reach all affected youth, the drop out rate in Lowell is effectively 1.6% - an historically low number.The High School staff know exactly who has not been attending school, who is in danger of giving up and therefore dropping out, and makes a multi-prong effort to reach out to students. However, that is not the end. Through collaboration with many supportive partnerships and departments, students in danger of dropping out are only encouraged to continue schooling through meaningful and often personalized solutions and support. This enables that student to continue their education and obtain a High School diploma. Examples of such supports include allowing a student who is juggling infant/child care to come in during 2nd period to accommodate childcare arrangements, and finding ways to make up missing credits (credit recovery). Knowing how essential it is to continue to reach disengaged students and not give up on them, this is truly an effort to be recognized.Sometimes, the most effective solution is a result of looking for creative ways to solve a problem and that, it seems, is what has been the result of defunding summer school at the Middle Schools. Ms. Durkin explained that when summer school (estimated costs $250,000) was defunded, her office cobbled together about $20,000 from a variety of budget sources. With that money, the Middle Schools offered extra interventions (before/after school, Saturdays, April vacation) for students in danger of failing coursework or in danger of non-promotion. Middle School administrators reported that the interventions were far more successful than Summer School.The packet contains details for these two programs, but a suggestion might be to look for the re-broadcast of the meeting or the LTC video link for this meeting online. Discussion and presentations for the two items come up somewhere in the vicinity of the 90 minute mark.New BusinessThe biggest item from this portion of the meeting was the School Committee’s approval of the United Teachers of Lowell (UTL) and Lowell School Administrators (LSAA) contracts. The principals’ and Assistant Superintendents as well as SEIU were discussed in Executive Session. The contracts were approved quickly with virtually no discussion save the comment by Mr. Gendron that this was the best agreement for all parties along with a stated wish that the contract could have been 3 years, not two.  The negotiations on a successor contract will begin shortly.Those viewing the meeting may have wondered why Mr. Descoteaux recused himself from the vote.  Mr. Descoteaux, like I, retired in June 2016, and the recently ratified and signed contract will have a personal financial impact.  As I understand it, there will be benefit from the 0.5% increase that went into effect in January 2015 as there will be a change and adjustment in salary reporting to MTRS for the purpose of pension computations. For the uninitiated, pension amounts (funded through contributions to Massachusetts Teacher Retirement System or MTRS) are impacted by collective bargaining agreements as a retiree's pension amount is a percentage (based on age and years of service) of the average of the highest (usually the last) 3 years of remuneration. When a collective bargaining agreement has lapsed, as it did in Lowell, the reported salary for a teacher is considered tentative. In simple terms, as far as MTRS is concerned, any Lowell teacher who retired last June will need an updated 3-year salary average, and recalculated monthly pension amount.  Since Mr. Descoteaux is benefiting from the “new” contract, he must recuse himself from the vote. The meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 03 February 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, February 3, 2016All members present.SubcommitteesThe Subcommittee on Policy, chaired by Mr. Hoey, met on January 27th. The report from the meeting suggested a change to the LPSD school purchasing policy so that LPSD purchasing aligns with the City of Lowell purchasing policy.  Much discussion about the threshold of a requests (currently $5,000; proposed $35,000) that would trigger a Permission to Enter.  While the full committee supports the editorial changes (see meeting packet), there is a larger discussion about retaining the $5,000 threshold for a variety of reasons, number one being to keep a handle on how the school budget is being spent. This discussion will continue at the next school committee meeting.Reports of the SuperintendentThree agenda items (2016/43, 2016/50 and 2016/44) addressed school year and School Committee calendars.  The Calendar for the upcoming school year was approved after Ms. Martin received clarification that the Massachusetts State Primary date was indeed a Thursday (9/8) and not a Tuesday (9/6).  The reason for the move to a Thursday election day is explained here, but in simple terms, the change is necessary to comply with Federal regulations for the distribution of absentee ballots to overseas voters.The new calendar is posted here.As several Lowell schools are used as polling sites, the reality of post-Newtown building safety is that schools are closed for students during election days. This policy also necessitated a revision to the 2015-2016 calendar to accommodate the Primary Election on Tuesday, March 1, 2016. The revision means that the end of school dates on the posted calendar need to be revised to comply with the mandated 180-day school year for students.  The new end dates (pending any snow days) are: June 16 (180th day with no snow days) or June 23 (185 days with 5-day snow allowance). And of course if there are more than 5 snow days between now and June 23, the school year extends further. [Revision 05 February 2016: New last date is June 17 due to snow cancellation today.]Agenda Item 2016/44, a request to reschedule February and April School Committee dates so that meetings are not taking place during school vacation weeks when interested parents or community members may wish to take part was amended. The meetings are now cancelled with the possibility of a Special Meeting of the School Committee scheduled if the need for such a meeting arises.Agenda Item 2016/58 addressed the need to hire an additional teacher and paraprofessional at the Bartlett School for students enrolled in a Life Skills program. The requested funding was $64,789. Currently, the number of students enrolled in the program exceeds the compliance number by 3 students.  After some discussion about funding (Ms. Martin points out this is the second meeting in a row that a request for a position was made) and what compliance for the program is, the item is approved.While on the surface, three students does not seem like it would be a significant number of children to accommodate, the Special Education Department must ensure compliance with regulations in order to adhere to state and federal laws. All students need to have access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). If you are unfamiliar with what LRE means, this link provides good summary information.In order to be compliant with special education regulations, the ratio of students to teacher & paraprofessional in the Life Skills program should be no more than 12:1 (note that preschool ratios are 9:1).  As Ms. McCrystal (Special Education Director) explained, to achieve the compliant ratio, three students would need to be sent to an outside-of-district placement for their education, a decision that would not be necessitated by need but by number.  Cost estimates for placing for one student out-of-district would be about $50,000 not including transportation. Three additional agenda Items address:

• athletic participation at Lowell High,
• an update on engaging the legislative delegation and Lowell’s concerns regarding Newcomer programs (and the difference between reimbursement and program costs which are significant), and
• an update for Community Service Day in the Lowell Schools.

The biggest discussion of the meeting was in response to the LHS Investigation Report (Agenda Item 2016/65).  The report has been made public and can be found here.Among the many suggestions and discussions regarding information and suggestions in the report is one complicated question: Do Lowell School staff members - in all schools, not just the high school - mirror the diversity in the schools? And if not, how can the schools achieve greater diversity among staff?The redacted report has been the subject of much discussion throughout the community; there are of course, privacy and personnel matters that impact the release of the redacted information. The Superintendent appears to be following the advice of counsel, and I would like to allow him the opportunity to follow-through. The suggestions that were made public seem minimal and should be acted on immediately. When an event this important happens to make our students and families feel unsafe, looking back at what happened and where breaks in protocol occurred are important. Ensuring that staff at all levels understand and comply with procedures no matter who is involved and increasing sensitivity and awareness to cultural differences and issues of race are imperative to school culture and the safety of all families and students.One important suggestion in the report is to engage in more diverse hiring practices. Changing to a more culturally and ethnically inclusive faculty and staff is not necessarily something that happens overnight. Engaging in more inclusive recruiting and hiring from a more diverse field of candidates is just the first step, in my opinion. A more complex question might be how to encourage potential education majors from a wider cultural and ethnically diverse population. Do all students see a college education and a career in education as something within reach, something attainable? Or has the high cost of higher education coupled with the toxic public education environment turned potential educators away to other careers or fields of study? Last night, one of the comments was that diveristy in hiring is not simple; the corporate world is grappling with this issue as well. However, this does not mean we do nothing. I would agree with that. The incident at Lowell High has brought an ugly undercurrent to light. Looking at what has occurred in the past is a necessity, but the actionable items should not stop there. Looking at school department policies, sensitivity toward an incredibly diverse family population, and diversifying the school staff from top to bottom are all part of this larger conversation and effort.The meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 20 January 2016

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, January 20, 2016All members present.Twenty-seven items were posted on this agenda which included an Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and consideration of contract extensions for two Assistant Superintendents. Although most of the meeting was routine, there were two points that caused longer discussion: STEM at Lowell High and a move to use the PARCC test this Spring.There appeared to be a glitch posting the packet and agenda on the LPS website for this meeting as it did not appear on the School Committee website until a day before the meeting. While this was resolved in time for the meeting, there is interest from the community in the agenda; it would be beneficial to also see the agenda in time for people to consider the issues being discussed.  By also publishing minutes for the Subcommittees, more citizens who are interested in the Lowell School System can better understand the issues facing the schools and understand and even contribute meanfully to the decision-making process.

Unfinished Business

The Establishment of Subcommittees and the members assigned to each committee was approved without discussion at tonight’s meeting.The packet posted on the City of Lowell website and on the LPS School Committee page did not include this information. The Subcommittee webpage has not be updated since last year. So, at this point, the subcommittee member assignments are unknown. 

Motions

Agenda Item 10 (2016/12) made by Connie Martin formally invited the administration and students from Generation Citizen who presented their findings regarding Financial Literacy courses to the Curriculum Subcommittee meeting for further discussion of such a program. This action was a follow-up to last school committee meeting when the LHS group made a presentation of their project to the whole committee.Agenda Item 13 (2016/13) made by Ms. Martin requested the Superintendent develop a comprehensive plan to restructure the district and accommodate the imminent increases in student population. This motion is very loosely tied to the request for modular classrooms for the Wang School (see Reports of the Superintendent).Agenda Item 14 (2016/29) made by Mayor Kennedy requests the administration establish a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) curriculum at Lowell High and received more in-depth discussion. Mr. Kennedy reminds the committee that he initiated this requests last year from the City Council; the motion was referred to Subcommittee. The Mayor feels that such a curriculum will make Lowell and LPS more attractive to parents and students and cites US News & World Report ranking of STEM High School programs; Massachusetts has 15 recognized programs, Lexington High School being one of them. A suggestion that Lexington’s program might provide Lowell with at least a starting point. One suggestion was to structure STEM at the High School similar to the Latin Lyceum.Mayor Kennedy feels referring this back to Curriculum Subcommittee will only cause implementation of the program, something he would like to see start in September 2016, to be delayed. There had been some discussion with Headmaster Martin who compared a STEM curriculum to what is already in place. That programs is referred to as Pathways. Quoting from the Lowell High website:

Our Pathway Programs provide opportunities for all students and their different abilities, interests and talents. Whether a student is planning to work immediately after high school, or will continue learning by attending a training program, a technical institute, a college or university, there are courses in our Pathway Programs that are right for every student.

Link here for more information.In further discussion, Mr. Hoey would like to hear from Mr. Martin that implementing a STEM program is feasible. Mr. Gendron would also like to hear from the Headmaster; however he notes that STEM is already part of the district and wonders about the transition from Middle School STEM programs. In the end, the committee votes to support the original motion that directs the LPS to begin development of a STEM program.My understanding of the Lyceum is that students must apply to participate in this four-year program or Pathway (we used to call this a “track”). This would be a question for the Committee - is the envisioned STEM High School program going to be for students who apply, or is it a choice in the track of coursework?  What would be the expectation or end-result of a student successfully completing the four year course of study? Parents will want to keep an eye on this as an opportunity for their students.

Reports of the Superintendent

• Knowledge Bowl update: dates to note are March 7 - March 24, 2016.
• Quarterly Financials: Amounts spent are consistent with previous years. Some amount encumbered to anticipate spending through rest of fiscal year.
  • Transportation is running a deficit ancitipated to be $179,000 (attributed to increase in transportation needs of SpED students);
  • Insurance account anticipated to have $300,000 shortfall (attributed to employee insurance status changes)
  • Grant funds - 8 new grants since last report resulting in an increase of funding close to $400,000
  • Revolving Account (milk/lunch) has about $2.8 million in account. Ms. Martin inquires about refunds due to parents who had prepaid lunch accounts prior to the free lunch program starting. Those amounts are still due parents, but as reported previously, this presents a logistical problem for City accounting. Mr. Antonelli is working with City to get refunds to parents.
• Modular Classrooms: As a response to the population bubble anticipated for the Middle Schools in 2016, the District is requesting 2 modular classrooms to be installed at the Wang Middle School. Each classroom ($36,000) plus anticipated design (approximately $10,000) needed as the Wang has no room for additional students. Other middle schools throughout the city will also be taking in students of course (anticipated additional students anicipated for 2016-17 school year alone are 200 plus), but have some way to accommodate them. Students are assigned to Middle Schools from Grade 4 according to Zones, so that the population increase will be felt by all Middle Schools, not just the Wang. By requesting modulars for this year only, the Superintendent will have some time to look at a more comprehensive way to accommodate increasing Middle School student populations, anticipated to continue for the next 4 years.

I’m making an assumption/interpretation that the other schools have some ability to include more students with some scheduling or repurposed classrooms. For example, at the Lincoln School, there are 5, not 4 Fourth Grade classrooms this year accommodating an increased bubble class that has been making its way through the Lincoln School since Kindergarten. The “extra” classroom was originally a faculty meeting space; and had several other purposes since the building was constructed; once the bubble class “graduates”, a new program will be housed in that classroom space.

• Project LEARN and Grant Updates. District continues to work in partnership with UML and MCC. Project LEARN has been very active thus far in helping schools to raise funds.
• Personnel Report accepted as a report of progress.

New Business

Item 18 (2016/31) requested permission to post the position of Part-Time Office of Accountability Developer. The funding for this position is available through the end of the fiscal year (June 2016) using Title I funds. There is a lot of confusion about what funds are available for (student programs?, teaching staff?, consultants?); Dr. Khelfaoui is looking for someone with experience in Accountability to assist with rolling the currently organized accountability endeavors into the new strategic plan. Passes 6 to 1 (Ms. Martin votes no). Request for an organizational chart to help Committee Members understand realignment of duties and responsibilities.After approving the request to post Accountability Developer and a transfer of funds to Teacher Academy, the big ticket discussion came up: Adoption of PARCC test for this spring (Agenda Item 2016/36). Superintendent Khelfaoui is requesting that the School Committee, which had previously rejected PARCC test in October 2015, now approve administration of PARCC in the Spring. Originally against using the PARCC test in Lowell, but now making the request to move to PARCC, Dr. Kehlfaoui cited the following:

• While the online test administration for the pilot program in Lowell was disasterous (expensive, infrastructure demands), Commissioner Chester now allows that test can be administered in pencil/paper format. The Commissioner had visited Lowell on January 6, 2016.
• Although we have great schools (shout-out to Bartlett for attaining Level 1 status), some schools are at Level 3 and preciptiously close to Level 4 even though the teachers are working hard to prevent this. Just one Level 4 school means the entire district will be designated Level 4; negating the extraordinary good work of schools at Levels 1 and 2 as well as any progress being made by Level 3 schools. It also will mean that, as a Level 4 District, there will be consequences impacting how the schools are managed (see the Commonwealth’s takeover of Lawrence and Springfield as examples).
• Commissioner Chester has offered that any Massachusetts school district using PARCC this year will be held harmless. Meaning that test scores that go up will count toward moving a district UP, test scores that go down will not impact the school by moving it toward a lower level or designation. Note that while the school district is going to enjoy this breather, teachers may or may not - test scores are under discussion for consideration in teacher evaluation.

Mr. Gignac opened discussion by expressing concerns about PARCC and the lack of information available in the packet. He expresses his concern that there has been virtually no discussion or public input, and that there is pressure to make the decision (PARCC or MCAS) now. Mr. Gignac learned that some accommodations for IEPs are still disallowed. He has also discovered each test is to be completed within a specified amount of time where MCAS was not. Mr. Gignac says our students deserve the best education NOW; does holding the results harmless negate thorough analysis of data? He is puzzled that the deadline for making the decision to test using PARCC has passed, yet the School Committee is being asked to approve PARCC use tonight.Discussion continued with school building administrators expressing that PARCC was enthusiastically being embraced by their building teachers. Jennifer McCrystal had spoken with DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) to clarify the use of accommodations that were previously available in MCAS, and she had answers to many questions. Ms. McCrystal has committed to explaining this fully to interested parents and anyone else at the upcoming SpED Parent Advisory Meeting.Paul Schlictman spoke about test from his vantage point as a district administrator and school committee member (Arlington). As the pool of schools taking MCAS shrinks, if Lowell continued to administer MCAS this school year, the probability of more Level 4 designated schools will likely increase (fewer schools taking MCAS will mean that Lowell Schools will be compared to a small subset of Massachusetts schools which increases the odds that any struggling school may find themselves with a Level 4 status). Ms. Abrams, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, states that while MCAS had served us well over nearly 20 years, students are ready for the rigors of PARCC because teachers teach to standards not to test.Paul Georges, UTL president, spoke about the Union’s objection to all high-stakes tests and the punitive nature of tests like PARCC. While understanding that this is a difficult choice, he states that tests like this are punitive.  State Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester has recently been quietly removed as PARCC Board chair (link) and seems to have a ulterior motive in pushing PARCC. Corporations standing to make money on the change (Pearson Education) are pushing out this test and the high-stakes test agenda with little or no regard to expertise of educators.Mr. Gendron says adopting PARCC, especially since the online requirement is removed, will buy time to find out about resources. (The Commonwealth is only offering E-rate which pays for infrastructure and not for hardware) Mr. Hoey echoes the sentiment that testing is punitive and states that having been on the School Committee when MCAS testing first began, he feels that children are being damaged by testing. Connie Martin also expresses reservations; however, will support adoption of PARCC as it appears as the District’s “only choice”. She is not enthusiastic.In the end, the move toward PARCC was approved 5 yes, 2 no (Mr. Gignac and Mr. Hoey).As this is mainly a report, I have tried to restrict my commentary in this post. However, it is clear to see that this is a decision that will cause our students - all of them, a great deal of stress. It is also clear that the PARCC issue really puts our school system in a difficult position. The Commissioner of Education's recent visit to Lowell seems to indicate that he has put Lowell in his sites. Readers may recall that during his recent visit with the Murkland School, on one hand he was complimentary about their phenomenal success and with his next breath advocated a move toward PARCC and “encouraged the district to re-think its decision to stick with the MCAS state test this spring."  Amelia Pak-Harvey's story covering this visit can be found here.I have many concerns about the PARCC test, or any high stakes tests actually, and our students, primarily English Language Learners (30% first language not English, 25% English language learners in district from Massachusetts DESE website). After having looked at the PARCC consortium and the web-based test samples for the last 3 years. I have concerns about this test when states that used to be part of the PARCC consortium leave it, sometimes after administering the test one time (Washington Post).I have concerns when I hear that there are set limits on the amount of time for each subtest. I have reservation that fitting 7-8 test periods into a short test window (April 25-May 27 per DESE) will lead to test fatigue, students who are exhausted from days of testing.   I am relieved that paper-and-pencil versions will be used as the technology layer is one many of our students are not yet ready to conquer.  I appreciate that the English Language Arts test does not take place in early March as testing children on one years’s growth at the seven month point in a school year, as MCAS did, seems to be set up for failure.I have a concern when a PARCC Executive Board member appears to be applying the hard-sell with school districts across the state (not just Lowell as it turns out) by making deals that ignore passed deadlines. That alone makes me wonder what the ulterior motive might be. We have recently learned Mr. Chester lost his chairmanship of the PARCC board. He is still a member of the PARCC Executive Board, however, and that, in my opinion is a conflict of interest concerning objectivity and this test.Pragmatically, I understand the rock and hard place that caused the PARCC vote to pass. No one wants the specter of a Level 4 designation and the consequences that could accompany it (demoralization of staff, loss of local control, installation of school overseers) and by taking the “deal” (that being the incentive to not hold scores against the District) the LPS can avoid that.  Reading between lines - what was said and left unsaid - there was little choice for the Committee. What is unavoidable is that our students will be put through the wringer with a new assessment that may or may not provide useful curricular data, no performance data, and may still be used as a tool for teacher evaluation.I plan to write about this in depth over the weekend from the perspective of a teacher who was in the midst of high-stakes testing in a lower performing school.  {Edited to include link 23 January 2016}Executive SessionThe committee ended the public portion of the meeting and went into Executive Session for the contract, litigation updates and to consider extensions of contracts to the Assistant Superintendents.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 06 January 2016

6 members present, Jackie Doherty absentAs the first meeting of the year, this was a very quick one (about 25 minutes). Most of tonight’s agenda was routinely dealt with so I’ve only noted points in the meeting where there was some discussion.After the roll call, Mr. Gendron received committee persmission to have LHS students from Generation Citizen address the Committee. If you, like I, were a bit confused about the program, here is a link to a December 30 article in the Lowell Sun by Amelia Pak-Harvey.  This project is a pilot meant to introduce students to civic engagement.The students present at tonight’s school committee meeting explained their process in determining a need for a financial literacy course and asked for the Committee’s support in implementing a financial literacy program at the High School. After the presentation, Mayor Kennedy suggested that the students’ request be put more fomally on a future meeting’s agenda.And, as a side-note, Ms. Martin noted a 4-day summer program for high school seniors which is sponsored by CTI. The program, Student Finance 101, is offered for free and is designed to assist seniors navigate financial aide and other financial issues as they move on to college and greater financial independence.

Motions

Mr. Gendron presented the two motions on the agenda tonight. The first motion (2015/506) requested planning and a follow-up report for what has annually been a Community Service Day  throughout the school system each Spring. Last year, my fourth grade students participated in this effort by cleaning and beautifying Lincoln Square Park; throughout the City, students do similar service projects embracing the importance of becoming active in their community. The second motion, 2015/507, requested a plan for the handling middle school population explosion anticipated to begin next school year. In addition to modulars (portable, leased classroom spaces), the district needs to consider teaching and support staff expenditures needed. Ms. Martin suggested that along with consideration for modular spaces, the district should also look at the anticipated re-zoning of schools (see Item 7 from the prior meeting on November 18, 2015) - which of course will make this a lot more complicated, but should result in an effective solution to significant increases in the middle school population.I would agree with Ms. Martin’s suggestion here. Looking at the increased needs at the Middle School level along with the complex issue of creating a neighborhood school approach to student assignments will definitely be a daunting challenge. Rather than patch the immediate need for space with a band-aid, a more thorough analysis of student assignment and school zones will provide a longer-term solution and should result in a more permanent policy.

New Business

Under new business, a budget transfer request (2016/9) to increase the NEASC (New England Association of Schools & Colleges) accreditation budget from $15,000 to $24,000 was questioned by Mr. Gignac.  Mr. Antonelli was not able to identify the origin of the budgeted amount ($15,000) as the budget was developed prior to his tenure (possibly based on an historic figure from prior budgeting the last time LHS was accredited?). The increased amount ($24,000) covers the travel expenses for a Visiting Team of educators participating in the accreditation of Lowell High as well as the report presented to the District (due in Feb. 2016).During the course of the accredition process, the high school hosts a visit, or peer review, by a  visiting team of  colleagues who observe nearly every aspect of a high school operation. As a result of this on-site visit, a report is made noting strengths and areas where improvement might be needed according to the NEASC guidelines. Here's a link in case you'd like to read more about this. The travel expenses for this 4-day visit are included in the requested increase of $9,000. A side-note to routinely approved Convention and Conference requests was made by Ms. Martin.  The Martha McQuade Adventure Fund (story written by Jen Meyers here) offers scholarships to assist students who would like to participate in international travel opportunities, but find the costs limiting.Meeting adjourned at 6:56 pm. Record time.

School Committee Meeting Notes, 16 December 2015

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 16, 2015All members present.This is the last meeting for 2015 and therefore, the last time this particular group of members will meet as a School Committee.The published agenda for this meeting was 33 items long, and given some of the topics, I thought we all might need to pack sleeping bags and snacks.  However, the Reports of the Superintendent - all 17 of them - were taken as a whole leaving more time to allow departing members to make farewell commentary.Special Orders of BusinessThis meeting highlighted the achievements of four teams from Lowell High: Cheerleading, Crew, Boys’ Cross Country, Girls’ Cross Country and Boys’ Soccer. Along with the team members, special recognition was given to coaches and senior members of each team.The new interim principal for the Stoklosa School (replacing Nancy O’Loughlin, retiring this month) was introduced. Roland Boucher, retired administrator has been named interim principal through the end of this school year.Permission To EnterUsually I do not comment on these transactions because they are often routine approvals for items such as expenses incurred for Special Education plans. However, a newly added request from Safe Havens International, Inc. <link to site their site here and click on Services> ($67,458) was added to this agenda item (2015/487) in response to a 2012 motion requesting a comprehensive school safety evaluation. Safe Havens is slated to begin study of individual schools as well as Central Office in March 2016; the study will continue for about 4 months after which a report will address physical safety, safety policy, bullying, suicide prevention, and all manner of crisis management in each individual school building as well as the District as a whole. Mr. Antonelli recognized the significant role the legislative contingent, particularly Dave Nangle, played in obtaining funds to perform this study - something that most likely would not have been possible given the leaness of the budget and budget forecasts for 2016.MotionsAgenda Item 9 (2015/500) made by Steve Gendron requested a study of participation in sports programs. Citing Commonwealth Magazine’s statistics on sports participation and school drop-out rates, Mr. Gendron would like an analysis of which programs at Lowell High have the greatest participation in hopes of duplicating their success in other sports programs. Dave Conway wisely commented that not just sports, but other extra-curricular activities might have similar positive impacts. I agree! Music, drama, and other outlets and extra-curricular opportunities need to be preserved and valued for their positive effect on students.Agenda Item 10 (2015/501) made by Kim Scott requested the Superintendent develop a “plan to immediately notify the parents of guardians of any Lowell Public School student that has been bullied, physically assaulted or verbally insulted during the school day.” Ms. Scott noted that along with the recent incident at LHS, she has been contacted by several parents of students who were mistreated and whose parents were not immediately notified.As Dr. Khelfaoui stated, a protocol for notifications and processes in school safety already exists, and staff members review this every year. As much as everyone would like this to be failure-proof, it obviously is not and Ms. Scott’s motion points out a need to examine when and why failures in the procedures have occurred. Jeannine Durkin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, will undoubtedly remind all staff of the importance in following reporting protocols - but again, when breakdowns occur, it is important to look at why and fix them. On a similar note, Dr. Khelfaoui indicated that the much anticipated report regarding the incident at Lowell High this past fall should be on his desk “Thursday or Friday” (12/17 or 12/18).Subcommittee Meeting Notes

• Policy Subcommittee Meeting Notes only (discussion at 12/2 meeting). (2-hour school delay policy previously approved)
• Personnel Subcommittee Meeting Notes only (discussion at 12/2 meeting). I was surprised that no mention of Mr. McHugh was made (rumored to have been named to the CFO position; has decided to remain in Lynn according to news reports). 
• Personnel Subcommittee Meeting of 12/16/2015 did not occur.

Reports of the SuperintendentItems 14-29 were taken as a whole. Kim Scott pointed out a flaw in information gathering (survey) relative to School Lunch services (Item 26, 2015/495). Several parents were cut off in mid-survey which skewed the results. Mr. Antonelli said that the additional responses were unable to be added to the results. In response to a question about how the survey was developed, Mr. Antonelli worked with Food Services, Legal Department, and Administration.  He recommends a Fall and Spring survey that will ensure quality food service from vendor.The report included in the packet seems mostly positive. I realize Aramark has made some financial commitments that sweetened a deal with the school district; however, my personal observation (made when I was a faculty member) of the food quality was a bit different. Large food service corporations can notoriously put on a dog-and-pony show when contracts are being made or renewed (recent NY Times article about college-level conflicts). Frequent check-ins with students and parents with feedback and monitoring to the contractor should keep the food quality consistently high. New Business

• Two reappointments to the LTC Board (Anne Sheehy and Jack Pinard).
• Acceptance and thanks to Andre Descoteaux for a donation of $450.  Mr. Descoteaux promised a percentage of his campaign funds if his bid for a School Committee seat was successful.

Final Special Order of BusinessThis was the final School Committee Meeting for 5 of the 7 current members. As such, the departing members were recognized for their commitment and efforts.Connie Martin and Steven Gendron, the two current members who will return in 2016, expressed thanks and gratiude to all, as well as appreciation to Mayor Elliott for his visibility and outreach to Lowell Community.

• Kim Scott (2012-2016) thanks family, recognizes the efforts of Superintendent in reaching out to families. States that the attack on public schools needs to end and wishes new committee best of luck.
• Kristin Ross-Sitcawich (2012-2016) thanks family and colleagues. Admonishes new members  not to break the successes that have been built.
• Dave Conway (2008-2016) thanks Lowell for the opportunity; has been involved in schools since he attended LHS (age 13). Recognition of his colleagues - current and past school committee members - for time, effort, energy and applauds their sacrifice. Recognizes staff of Lowell Schools for their tremendous efforts; thanks community partners for their participation;  thanks Rodney Elliott for his energetic role in the City.
• Jim Leary (2006-2016). Thanks family. Recognizes challenging times and learning from colleagues; specially recognizes Connie Martin for her guidance. Recognition of teachers and principals - day in and day out do their best. Thanks public for the opportunity.
• Rodney Elliott, Mayor. Notes accomplishments of LPS (scores rising, student accomplishments), proud of teachers and commitment to their work as well as students. Thanks Connie Martin and Steven Gendron for their commitment and passion; leaving schools in good hands. Also recognizes Mary Sheehan, Executive Secretary, for her assistance as well as Dr. Khelfaoui.

I, too would like to thank all the members, and especially those who are moving on, for their commitment. We - school staff, administration, community members, families and school committee members have a common goal, and that goal is to offer the best opportunities for success to all students in the Lowell Schools. While we may not always agree on how to do that, we can and should have conversations with each other, respectful of views that might not be our own. So I, as a former member of a school faculty and a current community member, thank you for your service to our students. I look forward to seeing a revived City-Wide Parent Council add their voices to discussions, to continued community partnerships, and to a strong bridge from the School Committee to City Council.In two weeks, there will be five new members to this Committee who will make personal time commitments to help bring the Lowell Schools to the forefront of urban education. We are looking forward to their work as a committee. On January 6, 2016, the new committee meets for the first time. The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 02 December 2015

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, December 2, 2015Five members present, Mr. Gendron was absent.This meeting again featured a public portion and an Executive Session. Most of the agenda items were dealt with quickly with little discussion.MotionsThere were two new motions, both made by Mayor Elliott.  Agenda Item 5 (2015/453) addressed some concerns that LHS students appeared uninformed about a Voice of Democracy scholarship opportunity. Concerns were expressed to both Mayor Elliott and Councilor Mercier, and a request for a report on what transpired leading to the lack of LHS participation was requested.Agenda Item 7 (2015/454) sparked some discussion/questions. This motion requested a vote to release the Executive Session minutes relative to updates to the UTL collective bargaining negotiations and grievance/litigation updates. While Ms. Martin expressed that releasing the Executive Session minutes (which are not public) was premature, Mr. Elliott contended that the release of this information is needed to keep taxpayers and teachers/paraprofessionals up-to-date.  The motion to release the minutes passed with Mr. Elliott, Ms. Scott, Ms. Ross-Sitcawich and Mr. Conway voting in favor (Ms. Martin and Mr. Leary voted no, Mr. Gendron was absent).I’m going to refrain from commenting here as a former UTL member. However, I would comment that releasing Executive Minutes could possibly be a limiting factor in reaching agreement during contract negotiations. It seems to me that discussion of issues and proposed solutions might be less forthright and/or there might be less willingness to compromise or seek creative resolution when the parties know that whatever is said will go through the filter of public opinion. Subcommittee Meeting NotesThree subcommittee meetings were on the agenda.  Ms. Martin reported on the Curriculum Subcommittee Meeting of Nov. 17 which highlighted current and future collaborative efforts between the University of Lowell Graduate College of Education and several Lowell Schools.  See Meeting Packet for details.  As the Personnel Subcommittee Meeting reflected a discussion regarding the CFO position, that discussion was combined with Item 15, later in the meeting.Ms. Scott reported on the Policy Subcommittee meeting during which refinements to the Weather Cancellation Policy (school cancellations and the 2-hour delay proposal) were discussed.Reports of the Superintendent

• Item 10 (2015/440) - LRTA schedule. Mr. Antonelli (Interim Superintendent for Finance) reported that conversations with LRTA resulted in increased service; however, Ms. Ross-Sitcawich reports parents contacted her regarding overcrowded buses in the afternoon. Mr. Antonelli will investigate further.
• Item 11 (2015/441) - LHS had recently committed to a violence prevention program (Mentor Violence Prevention or MVP). LHS has identified students who, along with faculty advisors, will receive this free training  via Northeastern University. The SWEAR program, referenced in Mr. Conway’s motion on 9/16, will be included in a program assessment at the end of the school year.
• Item 12 (2015/442) Ms. Durkin explained the yearly process LPS engages in regarding review of bullying prevention and intervention. Although this is mandated every 2 years, LPS does this every year and updates manuals as needed.
• Item 13 (2015/445) Mr. Curley (LPS Maintenance) met with city-side counterparts to ensure reponsibilities for efficient removal of snow. A concern is that the snow accumulated at bus stops makes waiting for buses unsafe. Ms. Ross-Sitcawich requests that school committee and LPS administrators monitor the bus stop safety issue throughout the upcoming winter.

New BusinessA new CFO (Chief Finance Officer) contract was developed through the Superintendent’s office.  The most significant changes include the removal of the sick-leave buyback provision and the addition of earned vacation time (25 vacation days, 12 sick days, 2 personal days). The vacation time earning process is similar to that of private sector companies where a portion of the maximum vacation time is earned every pay period. The District went through a series of interviews and have selected the successor to Jay Lang for a the newly-renamed CFO position. Of the 18 applicants, Kevin McHugh, former Lowell School Committee Member and currently Lynn Public School Business Manager was the successful candidiate.The vote for the contract was 5 yeas (Martin, Leary, Conway, Scott, Ross-Sitcawich), 1 nay (Mayor Elliott) and 1 absent (Mr. Gendron) Here the discussion got a little muddy as to whether the Committee was approving just the contract wording or a revision that would include Mr. McHugh’s name as CFO. However, Amelia Pak-Harvey (Lowell Sun) is reporting that Mr. McHugh was the successful candidate and has received a contracted salary of $145,000 beginning on January 1, 2016. Link here to the Lowell Sun article.The revisions to the 2-hour delay policy (Agenda Item 17 2015/450) were presented. Those revisions include

• using ConnectEd to telephone families,
• the addition of local cable access TV show as an official means of communication,
• outlining which employees would report as usual upon a school delay (cafeteria and custodial staff), and
• cancellation of before school programs in the event of a cancellation or delay.

This item passed (6 yeas, 1 absent) and Dr. Khelfaoui will update the current written policy (dated 2004) and disseminate.The discussion regarding establishing an Accountability Office was deferred until next meeting.Prior to Executive Session and Adjournment, Ms. Martin requested that the incoming School Committee members are invited to the next meeting (December 16). Dr. Khelfaoui reported that his office had already reached out to the future school committee members through a introductory coffee meeting.Following the open meeting, the Committee went into Executive Session to discuss updates to the UTL contract negotiations, litigation and grievances.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 18 November 2015

School Committee Meeting: Wednesday, November 18, 2015All members present. Ms. Martin was presented with an award from Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) recognizing her work during 8 terms on the School Committee.Tonight was a packed agenda which included 15 Motion Responses addressing the lengthy and sometimes obsolete list of motions from prior meetings.MotionsTwo new motions,  Agenda Item 6 (2015/415) and Agenda Item 8 (2015/425) sparked significant discussion/questions. Agenda Item 6 requests a report on the number of children of LPS teachers who are not residents of Lowell and who attend the City schools. Agenda Item 8 requests this same information with the additional data on whether or not this is compliant with School compliance policy.Although not part of the new motions, these two agenda items and Agenda Item 7 (2015/424) are integrally connected to a prior notion by Mr. Elliot regarding the feasibility of a return to neighborhood schools. The two newer motions were put forward in response to constituents contacting school committee members. The constituents expressed concerns around a perception that the children of residents were wait-listed from their (first) choice schools within neighborhood zones because an out-of-district student had been given a seat.Three School Committee members who spoke about the motions (Connie Martin, Kristin Ross-Sitcawich and Kim Scott) supported the continuation of the practice allowing out-of-district children of LPSD teachers a seat in the school system. Many questions about the number of students (from Dr. Khelfaoui that number is reported to be 37 children throughout the LPSD), how many children were placed into each school level (elementary, middle, high?), cost to the City (LPS do not participate in the Commonwealth “School Choice” program thereby limiting recouping any per pupil cost to the district), and whether or not the current policy which is based upon a memorandum that had received School Committee approval, needs to be reviewed and fine-tuned.One of the main elements in reviewing policy is to determine whether there needs to be a change in wording to reflect whether or not there are available seats. Twice it was mentioned anecdotally that Lowell residents were seeking placements in an outside district when they could not have their child placed in one of the neighborhood school choices they desired. The actual number of students impacted and whether or not seat availability is a cause was not clear. An anecdote regarding a child of a teacher living in, for example, Pelham, NH, but being educated in Lowell, MA was given to illustrate a “cost” problem.Item 7 (2015/424) requested that the Superintendent provide a review of school assignment process to ensure that the District is in compliance with policy (links below) and to propose a plan that would resolve any situations with students who were improperly placed in a school outside of their neighborhood school zone.Jim Leary spoke to the complexity of placements and some misunderstandings of school assignments using the geography outlined in the LPS zone system. He advocated that the three motions are directly connected to the issue of school assignment zones and neighborhood schools proposed (a motion Mr. Elliot made at a prior meeting). This is a huge and complicated issue for the School Department/School Committee and, while Dr. Khelfaoui has assigned a Task Force Committee from the Strategic Plan to study the issue, changes to the school assignment policy would most likely not be ready for implementation in 2016-17.A little review about the geographic school zones might be helpful. Resulting from the 1987 (revised in 1996) LPS Desegregation Order/Plan , the city schools are divided into one of two zones. In reality, Lowell, has three, not two zones. The PDF of the LPS zone map is found here. A third “zone”  in the City includes those schools drawing students from all neighborhoods. They are designated “City Wide” schools and include Lowell High School, Bartlett, Lincoln, Moody, JG Pyne Arts, and Robinson. The remaining 15 middle and elementary schools are assigned a geographical zone. According to Mr. Leary, the geography of these zones can be confusing to parents. He cited the example of a 4th grader who attends the Washington School (Zone 2) is assigned to the Butler Middle School for Grade 5 (also Zone 2). Parents question this assignment as the Daley School (Zone 1) is much closer - on just the other side of Stevens Street. The actual assignment of students is made not only based on zone preferences, but on minority/non-minority student population and student service needs. For example, a particular special education program such as Life Skills may be offered only at a particular school. Other factors impact assignments as well.I would agree with Mr. Leary that reviewing a move to neighborhood schools is going to be a giant undertaking. Paramount is the need for fidelity toward the court-ordered Desegregation Plan as well as consideration of parents who wish to send their children to nearby schools in their geographic neighborhood. It is not an easy revision to assigning students, and time will be needed to consider all aspects of school assignment as they are intertwined. The motions have been referred to the Policy Subcommittee (Kim Scott, chair; Kristin Ross-Sitcawich, Dave Conway, plus one Central Office representative).Reports of the SuperintendentIn an effort to clear up open and possibly obsolete motions, the Superintendent provided 16 responses to motions. Most of these were accepted without comment from the Committee; however, there was prolonged discussion surrounding three topics: Delayed Openings, Maintenance of buildings and grounds, and Newcomer Program resources.Item 13 (2015/499) was the response to Ms. Scott’s motion regarding a delayed opening of school in lieu of cancellation and received the greatest attention from Committee members.  The school administration is prepared to move to 2-hour delays when there is agreement from the City DPW that roads/streets and schools can be cleaned up to ensure student and staff safety. However, this motion response will not be voted on until the next meeting (December 2, 2015) as several questions and issues need further attention.Committee concerns and questions include coordination with partnerships providing before and after school services for parents who need child care in order to get to jobs regardless of weather situations, coordination with the City DPW, and LRT bus schedules. Mr. Gendron requested assurance that communications for delays would be clearly understood by all parents regardless of language barriers. Dr. Khelfaoui will bring definitive answers to concerns to the committee at the next meeting (December 2).The advantage of a school delay over canceling school, from a teaching standpoint, means that instruction is not disrupted quite as much. The daily continuity of lessons is more or less intact. Last winter, the District cancelled school 8 times resulting in extending the school year further in to June when the weather and temperatures are not as conducive to learning. Tacking on time at the end of a school year may satisfy the Commonwealth’s requirement for number of days in session, but it is not what any teacher would call quality learning time - the weather is too nice be be indoors, the temperatures in classrooms can get extremely hot (that’s another issue), and students’ attention is waning as summer vacation is in sight. For families, travel plans that seemed reasonable when made in January or February, now become rescheduling headaches with extra expenses attached. MCAS dates and windows are impacted significantly when winter instructional time is lost due to cancellations. For the most part, the Commonwealth (DESE) does not move dates for testing. In fact I can recall only one time in almost 20 years that the Long Composition test date was moved due to weather. Losing instructional time ahead of testing can mean a topic that needs to be explored prior to MCAS may not be taught as deeply as students need. While a delay may not be ideal, my opinion is that instruction is less disrupted by a delay when that option is safely available. School building and ground maintenance (Agenda Item 19, 2015/421, and Agenda Item 14 (2015/410) were discussed. Some frustration expressed by School Committee members about the speed with which building/facility repairs are made by City. Committee wishes to regularly review open ticket items, thus this motion will not be “closed” and removed from the list of Motion Responses.Lastly, the response to Mr. Leary’s motion (Agenda Item 21, 2015/427) regarding state and federal resources available to defray the cost of Newcomer Programs was discussed  The actual cost of the program is reported at $20,000-$22,000 per student while reimbursement is currently $12,000 per student.  Letters to the legislative delegations have not resulted in any satisfactory response. There was a discussion about the transparency of how the Commonwealth chooses school districts for the Newcomer programs - what is the criteria for receiving districts? The financial impact of this program on LPS is continuing to be felt in budget and resources for all students. Referred to both Student Support (Kristin Ross-Sitcawich (Chair), Dave Conway, Kim Scott and Jeannine Durkin, Adm. Representative) and Curriculum Subcommittees (Chairperson, Connie Martin (Chair), Jim Leary, Kim Scott, Claire Abrams, Adm. Representative).A brief conversation took place about the recent decision by DESE to implement MCAS 2.0 as a fully technology-dependent assessment by 2019. Many questions are still to be answered about how the state plans to support (i.e., financially) urban districts needing technology infrastructure build-outs to support the tech demands of the test administration.Following the open meeting, the Committee went into Executive Session to discuss updates to the UTL contract negotiations, litigation and grievances.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 5 November 2015

Meeting: Wednesday, November 4, 2015All members present.The day after local elections and a short agenda made for a quick public meeting - under 1 hour. The Committee met in Executive Session for an update of UTL negotiations/grievances after the public portion of the agenda.Most of the 19 agenda items were passed or accepted without much discussion.MotionsAgenda Item 11, (2015/395) LHS Athletics - Rule 53 Waiver Request, generated some clarifying questions.  The Rule 53 Waiver Request, apparently an annual agenda item, applies to 7th and 8th grade students audition for “selected” high school sports (swimming/diving, hockey). While the aim of the LHS programs in these sports is to have a feeder system through the Middle Schools, there are costs associated with these sports that make that difficult.  In the meantime, 7th and 8th grade student athletes are prepared for participation through the waiver, which passed.SubcommitteesSome time was spent summarizing Agenda Item 8 (2015/383), the Report from the Curriculum Subcommittee. The four-item focus of this meeting was:

1. Average age of textbook,
2. Kindergarten Report Card,
3. Eureka Math (elementary),
4. iReady implementation.

A chart of the textbooks in use (see meeting packet) shows there is a need for new materials in the Middle School science (text 1998) and Grade 7 ancient history texts (1995?).While individual student textbooks become more and more obsolete and the use of "multi-platform programs" becomes more frequent, curriculum focus shifts from following a teachers’ guide to teaching standards (Common Core, NEXT Science Standards, link HERE for Massachusetts standards). The conflict in this approach comes when the program authors interpret a standard; it is important to remember that program publishers such as Pearson are trying to make a profit. Sometimes the connection between an activity and an important standard can be a bit fuzzy.In my opinion and experience, “textbooks” are becoming less of a one-book-per-student purchase and more of a curriculum or program purchase. For example, the textbooks listed for the Elementary program, my area of experience/expertise, include 

• Children Discovering Justice (a program based on inquiry experiences led by the teacher),
• FOSS Science (mainly experiential, led by teacher, brief readings in a textbook collection),
• Eureka Math (developed from EngageNY curriculum units - teacher scripts/lessons),
• iReady (individualized Computer Assisted Instruction in Reading/Math),
• Calkins Writing Units (lesson sequences, relies on example texts) 
• Fiction/Non-Fiction Toolkit reading guides (suggested scripts, uses trade books)

Adequate and in-time professional development/training will be the key to success with these programs. For the lessons to be successful, teachers need to anticipate and prepare materials (the FOSS Kits for example take hours of teacher preparation). Educators also need to be thoughtful about how the individual students in the classroom will need to be supported. While the LPSD provides some trade books for teaching lessons, it was often my experience that these books, referred to as mentor texts, came from teachers’ personal finances. The school district as a whole needs to continually review the effectiveness of the programs for our students in reaching standards. Notice I didn’t say passing a test.A second subcommittee meeting’s notes, Personnel, and Agenda Item 13, addressed Dr. Khelfaoui’s evaluation.  Dr. Khelfaoui’s evaluation tool is directed by the Massachusetts (DESE) Department of Elementary & Secondary Education regulations, however, the specific professional and student goals are his own and were accepted.The link to the meeting packet can be found here.

School Committee Meeting, 21 October 2015

What follows are some highlights from a very lengthy School Committee meeting. In place of a bulleted list of meeting agenda items (the meetings are televised and rebroadcast by LTC), I’ve included some explanatory commentary. Why?  Education issues are often fairly complicated; we use too many acronyms and assume what is obvious to those of us who live in the educational world is just as obviously clear to those who may not.I decided to make School Committee Meeting commentary part of my education blogging for several reasons, the main purpose is to clarify why we should all care about and pay attention to local decisions impacting our schools. When we all understand the implications of decisions and work together to support Lowell on the path to becoming one of the great urban school districts, everyone, but especially our children, benefits.So here is my first offering, a synthesis of the major points of the meeting.My own opinions are highlighted in italics. If you have suggestions and or commentary that might make these posts more informative and helpful, I welcome them.Meeting Wednesday, October 21, 2015All seven committee members were present for this meeting. The Spotlight on Education portion of the meeting highlighted the achievements of the Kindergarten through Grade 8 Summer Math Program.One of the first agenda items to receive close attention was Item 7, a motion to go on record in opposition to the PARCC Tests (Partnership to Assess Readiness for College and Careers) by Steve Gendron.  After discussion, the committee has decided to approve communicating opposition to PARCC with a “friendly amendment”. The operative words “at this time” expressed the reservations discussed: namely that the PARCC will be very expensive in terms of time and equipment and, at this writing, those expenses seem to fall on local school budgets. I have previously written about my own concerns regarding PARCC tests and will reblog those posts separately.As the Lowell Schools, and most of the schools across the US, are currently tying curriculum to the Common Core Standards, there could be a perceived disconnect between the curriculum (Common Core) and the standardized tests (MCAS, PARCC and Smart-Balance used in some states). This is a complicated issue as the Common Core standards themselves are controversial, and there are efforts underway to return Massachusetts to prior curriculum standards.  Additionally, Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of Education (DESE - Department of Elementary and Secondary Education), just this week suggested the PARCC could be replaced by a hybrid of the MCAS (current) assessment system. (see link to Commonwealth Magazine). This hybrid is referenced as MCAS 2.0. It is unknown whether MCAS 2.0 will just look like a mildly reworked PARCC, thereby not making any substantive change. Mr. Chester is also head of the PARCC Consortium, a group formed to advance the use of this test throughout the US as a way to test Common Core standards. In my opinion, if even the Commissioner who has a bias toward adopting PARCC,  is abandoning this assessment, there is reason to question whether or not to adopt it at all.As for the expense of PARCC implementation in Lowell, there are several factors. The technology infrastructure was overloaded last year when a pilot, or small group of schools experimented with the test administration on iPads and laptops.  Additional technology infrastructure and hardware would be required. Estimates are currently in the $2 million range. That’s $2 million that Lowell does not have laying around. In the words of Mr. Leary, the state (or feds) need to “fund the mandate”. Newcomer Programs and Additional ELL TeachersAs an urban district, it is not a surprise that Lowell has a rather large population (29%) of English Language Learners which include newcomers. Mr. Leary noted that the newcomer program costs were reimbursed (by the state?) at about a 50% rate, leaving the City and School Department budget to come up with the rest.  Given the 29% ELL population, the shortfall numbers will not be sustainable and will impact other budgetary items and programs.The School Department prepared a detailed rationale and analysis of the need for assistance and issued a letter to our congressional representatives at the federal level.  The Committee has requested that Dr. Khelfaoui and his administration continue to keep the need for (financial) assistance on the minds of legislators at both state and federal levels and perhaps work in coordination with other schools in similar circumstance to bring this to the forefront.In a related agenda item, Lowell Schools have requested 5 additional ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers to support the mandated 45 minutes per day support for higher performing ELLs (English Language Learners) and 90+ minutes per day support for early English acquisition students. Performance levels are tested and tracked via yearly testing. Note: All classroom teachers are required to have an “endorsement” on their teaching license that they have been trained in differentiation techniques for ELLs. An ESL teacher has more specialized training to help students acquire English skills needed in content areas, for example.The School Committee supported this motion; the funding for the 5 positions will be presented at the next meeting. Funding is pending approval at the state level to transfer money from an Early Childhood revolving account.Other Agenda ItemsTwo other agenda items were discussed more thoroughly: a motion from Kim Scott to address quality of food in the cafeteria (including returning to in-house food services) and a review of the District finances.As the contract with Aramark is expiring this year, the Committee members would like to survey students and families about the food quality, and review Aramark’s performance ahead of any decisions to renew or revise the food services contract.A review of the budget expenses by Mr. Antonelli revealed that the district has expended or encumbered about 18% of the budget and this is considered within the normal range of operations.  There is a concern, however, that the budgeted amount for insurance will show a deficit by the end of the fiscal year. This seems to be due to more employees choosing the indemnity plan. When questioned further, Mr. Antonelli explained that the budgeted amount is derived after consultation with the City CFO and generated prior to the Open Enrollment period when employees choose their insurance plan. Therefore, while the budgeted amount may be a “best guess”, there are factors which can cause it to be inaccurate.The agenda and meeting packet for this meeting can be found at this link.

Strategic Planning Launch, October 14, 2015

These are my notes from the Strategic Planning Launch held October 14, 2015. (Lowell: Imagine Our Future Public Meeting). The meeting was held in the Burgoyne Theater at LHS Freshman Academy. In attendance were many school and district administrators, at least 2 current school committee members along with several candidates for school committee, parents, teachers, UTL leadership, community partner representatives, and interested community members.Continued public input is solicited through an online survey (link here).Those in attendance were welcomed by Jill Lang, Freshman Academy Director, followed by presentation of colors by the LHS JROTC and the Star Spangled Banner sung by members of the LHS Chorus.  Superintendent Khelfaoui welcomed the attendees and translation of this message was provided in several languages.A video created by LET Channel 22, What Makes Lowell Schools Special, was shown to introduce those in attendance to some of the positives in the Lowell Schools. Hopefully,  Central Office can make this video available to the public on a YouTube channel or link to LET22.Superintendent Khelfaoui explained the purpose for creating a strategic plan: to develop a multi-year strategic plan for continued growth and development of the Lowell Public Schools. The resulting plan will be developed through a series of public and issue-focused meetings which will include all stakeholders in the Public Schools. These stakeholders include: Administration, Faculty Members, Parents/Guardians, School Partners and interested community members.The inclusionary goal is to encourage people with diverse perspectives from throughout Lowell to participate in surveys, focus groups and committees. Dr. Khelfaoui cited his work in the Arlington (VA) Public Schools in this area (see link). Part of the strategic planning process, data analysis, has already begun through the LPS Leadership Academy (administrators). Claire Abrams (Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment) and  Jeanine Durkin (Assistant Superintendent of Student Services) explained the types of participation and time commitments that will be needed over the next months (late October through Spring 2016) in order to develop a strategic plan. The final version of the strategic plan will be presented to the School Committee. These are the four ways in which stakeholders might participate:

• Strategic Task Force: 10 or more members focused on a specific topic of relevance (minimum 3 meetings)
• Strategic Synthesis Team: Will combine all the reports of the Strategic Task Force Teams into a report for the Superintendent (minimum 6 meetings)
• Focus Groups: 10 or more stakeholders sharing common expertise and interests (1 meeting)
• Public Forums: groups of stakeholders meet to discuss concerns and issues (1 meeting)

Attendee were invited to complete this survey (link here) and indicate any level of participation they were interested in.  If you were unable to attend the meeting, please use the survey to voice your opinion/preference and willingness to participate in the future.The evening ended with a well-appreciated performance by the LHS Band.