HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-13-SC-min LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, February 13, 2024
Meeting Minutes
AGENDA:
CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME: 6:04 PM
SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Sara Cuthbertson, Chairperson
Deepika Sawhney, Vice-chair
Eileen Jay
Larry Freeman
Kathleen Lenihan, Clerk, did not attend the meeting.
Student Representatives: Hailey Kim, Tara Pai, Julia T., and Aditya Gulati
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PRESENT
Dr. Julie Hackett, Superintendent.
The minutes were taken by Julie Kaye, School Committee Meeting Recording Secretary.
The School Committee convened remotely. Members of the public can view and participate in
person or in the meeting webinar from their computer or tablet by clicking on the link provided
with the meeting agenda. Please note that this meeting is being recorded and that attendees
are participating by video conference. This evening's meeting is being broadcast live and also
taped by LexMedia for future on-demand viewing. All supporting materials that have been
provided to members of this body are available on the Town's website unless otherwise noted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Sawhney read the following consent agenda items:
Payroll and Accounts Payable Warrant Approval
a. January 12, 2024 - Payroll in the amount of$4660,411.57
b. January 19, 2024 -AP Warrant in the amount of$1,185,965.64
c. January 25, 2024 - Payroll in the amount of$4,809,819.28
d. February 2, 2024 -AP Warrant in the amount of$1,791,924.73
e. February 9, 2024 - Payroll in the amount of$4,989,369.44
f. February 16, 2024-AP Warrant in the amount of$1,065,649.88
g. February 16, 2024- BMO Warrant in the amount of$92,704.79
Ms Jay read the following consent agenda items:
Minutes
a. November 14, 2023
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
b. November 28, 2023
c. December 12, 2023
d. January 9, 2024
e. January 16, 2024
Mr. Freeman read the following consent agenda items:
Donations
a. $1,000 Donation from the American Math Society to the LHS Math Team
b. $500 Donation from Hudson River Trading, LLC to the LHS Math Team
c. $500 Donation from Global Partners to support STEM programming at Harrington
Ms. Cuthbertson made a motion to approve the entire consent agenda, Mr. Freeman
seconded. Ms. Cuthbertson took a roll call vote,passed 4-0.
SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND LIAISON REPORTS
Mr. Freeman announced that we have two educators, Lisa &Aisha, raising funds to take a trip to
Ghana. He will post the Go-Fund-Me link to his personal social media and encourage everyone
to support them so they can bring back real-life experiences to the district.
Ms. Sawhney thanked the volunteers and Board members of CALex for hosting an amazing
Lunar New Year celebration at LHS. She also thanked the staff and administration of Bridge
Elementary School for letting her be an observer. She visited the school for a pre-data meeting
last week. Ms. Sawhney will send the School Committee a write-up of everything she saw and
heard.
Ms. Jay also thanked CALex for another wonderful Lunar New Year celebration. She also
announced that there will be a meeting of the Cary Library's Full Board of Library Trustees on
Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at 12:00 PM.
The student representatives did not have any sharable reports at this meeting.
Ms. Cuthbertson also thanked CALex. She attended a wonderful celebration on Sunday evening.
COMMUNITY SPEAK
Ms. Cuthbertson explained that the two Community Speak sections will be combined, and she
will allot 30 minutes.
Sam Johnston - 8 Westwood Rd: "I have a daughter at Harrington who is now reading to her
grandparents. A year ago, she was hiding under a desk during reading time. Thankfully, she's
Orton Gillingham, and accessible materials are available in her general education classroom
where her books are read to her through text-to-speech. We're here in this place a year later
because of teachers and specialists who do the daily heroic work to really know kids and
address their functional needs, as well as collect data on what learning looks like in authentic
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
learning environments: classrooms. She also has parents who have been willing to fight against
a system that is far too often taking a programmatic rather than an individual approach to
students with certain disabilities. Administrators told us that you could not have a classification
of intellectual disability and a specific learning disability, which is not true. The discrepancy
model, which often involves 3 hours of testing with a stranger, most of which is not testing
reading skills, was used to deny an SLD diagnosis. While she has services, we are left fearful they
could just as easily be taken away if someone who's lucky enough to get the SLD diagnosis
instead of the vague reading difficulties we got needs them more. All our kids need the services
and support, and if we don't put the resources into teaching them all to read, we're not
succeeding as a system. If the school district is adopting MTSS, I don't understand why we're
using the discrepancy model. And why are we using it when it's ineffective for determining
dyslexia for so many kids?Those who don't test well, who may not be on grade level, or who
just had a bad day in the 3 hours used to make such a critical determination about what is going
on with them and what help they will get to address it. Please let the teachers and the reading
specialists collect ongoing classroom-based data that focuses on measuring reading and the
sub-skills that go into successful reading and use that data as the basis for SLD determinations
and the provision of services. And please understand that students with all disability
classifications can be dyslexic and can be successful readers if that dyslexia is addressed with
the right services and support. Thank you."
Heather Konar- 37 Grove St: "I have three children at Estabrook. My oldest child has a birthday
and just missed the grade level cut-off, so he effectively had an extra year of preschool. Based
on his strong scores on the Pre-kindergarten screener, he had excellent preparation for
kindergarten, but he quickly started to fall behind. When winter rolled around, he was offered a
spot in a supplementary small reading group for extra practice, and COVID hit in his
kindergarten spring. As I read with him every night, I was unprepared for quite how painful
those sessions were. He was having a great deal of trouble decoding words, and sight words
were a huge problem without copious context. At the beginning of my oldest's first-grade year,
my husband reminded me of what I had completely forgotten. My husband has dyslexia. As I
learned more, I believed both my sons had a similar learning profile. At this point, reading was
one of the last things my oldest would choose to do. A few weeks later, he was offered one of
only 5 available spots in the Reading Recovery program, which we accepted. The Reading
Recovery instructor was the sole of kindness and patience, and I remain grateful that the
program offered my son a badly needed boost to his self-confidence. However, I believe that the
techniques offered by Reading Recovery simply made him a better guesser rather than a strong
reader of words. That winter, he was diagnosed with dyslexia, and he was placed on an IEP that
spring, as was my younger son. With the help of evidence-based structured literacy instruction,
my sons have been making excellent progress. The Special Ed staff and classroom teachers at
Estabrook have been truly outstanding and clearly have my kid's best interests at heart. My
older son is now reading in the 99 percentile of his cohort and loves books so much he often
sneaks one to bed. My younger son is reading comfortably above grade level. Evidence-based
structured literacy instruction works. It works for both neurotypical and neurodiverse kids. It's
not a panacea, and it's not one size fits all. But it's flexible and effective. I applaud the recent
changes in the direction of structured, of evidence-based literacy curriculum, and I urge LPS to
continue to move away from quote-unquote "balanced literacy models" and away from Reading
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
Recovery and thoroughly adopt high-quality, evidence-based curriculum that aligns with the
current science on how the brain learns to read and write. In the hands of our excellent
teachers, this will ensure that far fewer children fall behind and will save us quite a bit of money
in the long run, I believe. Thank you"
Carolyn Radcliffe - 3 Richard Rd: "Thank you, School Committee members and Dr. Hackett, for
your time and attention. Our third-grade son was given reading intervention without an IEP for
2 years, beginning in the fall of Grade One. In November of second grade, our son began to act
out. He was bewildered by his own out-of-character behavior, expressed shame, frustration with
his learning progress, and a sense of hopelessness. In December of second grade, we initiated
an IEP eligibility evaluation, and our review of all our records during this process point to LPS
being aware that our son likely had dyslexia at least as early as the spring of first grade. When,
in the spring of second grade, we were able to finally explain that he has dyslexia, the weight of
shame, frustration, and hopelessness was lifted from his shoulders. We quickly saw the return
of our good-natured, happy, and engaging child. His Grade 2 suffering was completely
avoidable. It would have been avoided if the suspicion of dyslexia was unambiguously
communicated to us in the spring of first grade. Private neuro psych testing that we sought
upon awareness of his issue would have been sought earlier, providing him a diagnosis in time
for the start of second grade. Dyslexia and the associated learning differences are now a
foundational aspect of our son's identity. The schools are in a unique position to bring dyslexia
to light and contribute to a healthy view of the dyslexia portion of a child's identity. The failure
to identify or say dyslexia or suspected dyslexia with urgency is damaging. Students need to
read to learn by the end of third grade. Time is not on their side. The avoidance of
communicating possible dyslexia is a common experience shared amongst the parents of
dyslexic LPS students regardless of their neighborhood school. This causes exasperation and
distrust in LPS. The timing of understanding, a key aspect of one's identity, should not hinge on
their luck in having a teacher or teachers who are direct. LPS can easily improve literacy
communication by proactively making each set of the results of the new screening tool, mClass
Dibels, available to all families. Send families an email or snail mail, have a link on Aspen;
communication should be required. The LPS proposal is to provide only significantly below
results to families and to require a request for all other results. This is in keeping with the
present state of distrust. Let's instead proactively communicate to empower families to support
the associated challenges, including developing a healthy identity as a dyslexic thinker so that
the children in our community can hope to fully benefit from their amazing strengths. Thanks
for your attention."
Catie Sawka -Teacher in LPS: "I'm reading on behalf of a colleague. So this statement comes
from a Lexington Public School elementary special educator, and they are speaking on behalf of
students with severe dyslexia, language-based learning, and communication disabilities. In
recent years, it has become nearly impossible to refer a student with severe dyslexia to the LLP.
Staff have been told that the program is closed or simply that such a referral is not an option,
despite what a team feels strongly is in the best interest of the student. Despite herculean
efforts from these students and the special educators who work with them intensively, access to
a program where they could have a cohort of students with similar learning needs is denied.
Instead, they remain at their geocoded schools to receive much of their instruction individually,
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
as their language needs have severely impacted their progress in other areas than literacy, such
as math, where they may be many grade levels behind. This one-to-one instruction is more
restrictive than if they had been placed in a program with a cohort of peers. Unfortunately, this
sometimes results in the development of extremely reduced self-esteem, self-confidence,
depression, anxiety, and even school avoidance. How is this student centered? How is this
meeting the needs of diverse learners without stigmatizing them?Thank you for your time.
Have a good evening, everyone."
Maddie York- student: "I'm a sixth grader at Clarke, and I have ADHD and dyslexia. So before my
IEP, I fell out, and it was like being unseen, alone, upset, and sad with myself for not getting the
answer right away. I also felt dumb for all, for not getting it. It was also really hard. When I was a
kid, I never learned the building blocks of words. Instead, I just memorized all the words I
needed to know. But then, when it came to words I didn't know, I didn't know how to read
them. It always made me dread coming to any subject that had reading or writing in it. But now
that I have my IEP, I feel more comfortable coming to classes with reading and writing in it. In
fact, my English teacher actually helped me write this. So then, with the IEP, I felt seen. I now
see a reading team teacher twice a week. I'm in a group, I don't feel alone anymore. I'm more
confident, I'm calm and happy when I go to school. It's not that I'm dumb, I just don't
understand the concept. It's a little easier on my part, and I know the teachers know that I'm
trying my best, and I'm not not trying. I know in my heart why I'm why I'm not getting the
answer right. The reason I'm giving this speech is to get the IEP to the kids who might need it
but don't have it. Because now that I have the IEP, I feel more like myself. Thank you."
Kathy Abou-Rjaily- Special Educator since 2002: "During prior School Committee meetings
about the budget, it was disturbing to hear that the proposed reductions in Special Ed could not
be defined. Despite questioning by School Committee members. In fact, 1.6 of those positions
are for Special Ed staff at Bowman. Until this evening, there has been a lack of transparency that
this is for special educators in the Language Learning Program. A description of the elementary
LLP program is available on the Lexington SEPAC website. It describes systematic instruction
across literacy, math, science, and social studies. It is unsettling that the description previously
linked to the budget leaves out these wraparound services in other subject areas. These
descriptors have been replaced by a sentence about how capacity has been built only in the
area of reading in students' geocoded schools. The district actively develops strategic plans and
committees for new buildings for schedules. Special educators I've spoken to are confused
about what exactly the strategic plans are for addressing the needs of students requiring
wraparound services. Before voting on the budget, I suggest the School Committee ask 3
questions. By asking these questions, you can assist in transparency for both special educators
and parents who have been trying to get the answers, especially over the past month, only to
have those meetings with administrators canceled. One: how are we building capacity for
students with language-based learning disabilities and those needing wraparound services
across academic areas. Especially if you are reducing positions targeted for these students?
Two: how are we strategically planning for these services without parents needing to rely on
advocates to delineate them? And three: how is the department sharing the process for access
to these services, both within home schools and for district-wide programs. Thank you so much
for listening, Committee members and Dr. Hackett. Please keep exemplifying our Lexington core
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
values by being furious enough to seek those answers"
Jess Quattrocchi - 102 Pleasant Street: "I'm the Co-chair of LexSEPTA/SEPAC and a member of
the Dyslexia Task Force, but I'm here tonight speaking for myself. Thank you to the School
Committee members, Superintendent Julie Hackett and Ellen Sugita, Special Education Director,
for your time and dedication to our children. A tremendous amount of parents and children are
suffering from these ineffective methods of teaching our children to read. Children in third
grade and up have not been taught phonics, which is a fundamental basic need in order to
sound out the words to read. Can you imagine in Lexington, the gold standard, our children are
being taught to read with non-evidence-based teaching methods, this has to be stopped. The
time is now, and we need our School Committee members to listen, and our Special Education
director, and our Superintendent. What is being done for the fourth graders and above?These
children were missed, and I have heard from tons of parents of upper elementary, middle
school, and high schoolers that are still struggling to read. I have asked for a concrete plan for
what we will be doing for these children, not including having parents hire private tutors. This
should not be the plan. When we pay taxes for a public school system, we need to address this.
A plan needs to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. We need to make specific
changes to help our fellow community members, including children, parents, and teachers, that
are struggling with this curriculum and system that is failing our children. I am here speaking to
you, before you, with a plea to do the right thing by our children. Many of you have heard my
personal family story already. It's heartbreaking to continue to tell it over and over and continue
to get nowhere with implementing evidence-based methods into our schools. I was on the
Dyslexia Task Force that made progress over the years and shared with the LPS district, and they
implemented Wilson's Fundations, although only for K-2, now third grade as well after it was
piloted. Again I ask, what is being done for our fourth graders and up who miss the phonics
structured literacy methods in order to learn to read? I would like an answer to this question
that I've been asking since I became LexSEPTA/SEPAC co-president. And that's all I have for you
tonight. Thank you"
Jennifer Elverum - 3 Penny Ln: "I wanna start by thanking Kathleen Lenihan and Larry Freeman
for taking the time over the last few weeks to talk with me, to listen to my concerns, and to
share your perspectives. I also wanna thank the brave teachers that were willing to speak with
me about their opinions on the ELA curriculum despite being told to not engage with parents by
the Administration. So thank you to all those teachers. I'm deeply concerned by how our
superintendent is leading this district. First, she has been unwilling to adapt with the times as
data has emerged, and second, she is presenting a minority view of experts. Dr. Hackett has
inaccurately said that parents are looking for a silver bullet in a one-size-fits-all curriculum. At
the last School Committee meeting, Dr. Hackett at 2 hours and 17 minutes in said "that people
weren't malicious for following Units of Study or Lucy Calkins, and education is slow to catch up
to the research and science." Well, Dr. Hackett, it seems we are all caught up. So now isn't it
time to do better for our students and teachers? 37 States have already moved away from
balanced literacy. Columbia shut down Lucy Calkins Teacher's College of Reading and Writing
Workshop. There may not be a silver bullet, but we do know what doesn't work. The data is
very clear on that. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of literacy experts are in agreement on
the settled science of reading. In a state filled with leading universities, Dr. Hackett found only
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
two literacy professors to sign a letter supporting her narrow opinion. Catherine Snow is known
to spread misinformation; she has politicized literacy and is the only one from Harvard that
supports her minority view. There will always be people with alternative facts. Some people still
don't think climate change is real. Do not be fooled or misguided by these outliers. Do your own
research and make sure you aren't tuning into the wrong station for your facts. Thank you."
Paul Quattrocchi - 102 Pleasant St: "Thank you for letting me speak. I'm deeply frustrated with
the current state of education, particularly the failure to teach basic foundational skills like
reading. Reading is fundamental, yet it seems that gold standards are being missed, and many
children are struggling to read. I've witnessed parents spending tens of thousands of dollars on
tutors, hoping to bridge the gap. However, the issue goes beyond the financial burden. The
social stigma attached to falling behind in reading can permanently damage your child's self
confidence. This not only affects the individual child but also impacts their siblings, family, and
extended family. I grew up in Woburn, where there was a more responsive approach to parents
whose children were struggling with reading, unlike what I have observed in Lexington. It's
disheartening to see the system so entrenched in its own success narrative that it fails to
prioritize the needs of the children. It's time for the School Committee to acknowledge the
reality on the ground. Our children, like mine, should be the most important constituents.
However, I see little evidence of this in action. Administrators engage in double-speak with fancy
words and data manipulation, while basic processes, like obtaining an IEP for a child in need,
becomes a ridiculous hurdle. In my profession, adherence to standards and science-based
methods is non-negotiable. If I were to disregard these principles, I would face severe
consequences, including losing my license. Yet, I don't see the same level of accountability in
education. I refuse to blame the teachers, they are working with the tools and methods
provided to them. It's time to stop harming both teachers and students by clinging on to debunk
curricula like Lucy Calkins. The buck stops with the School Committee. It's time for them to
prioritize the needs of our children over bureaucratic processes and personal narratives of
success. In conclusion, the current state of education leaves much to be desired. It's time to
take action, implement scientifically proven teaching methods to ensure that every child has an
opportunity to succeed. We all belong, but it's evident that the current system is failing to
uphold this principle. Thank you very much."
Kyle York- 15 Cliff Ave: "It's evidenced by listening to all of these stories tonight that these are
the people who are willing to come forward and to share their truths, even though it's
heartbreaking to have to relive these super painful moments and memories again and again.
But all I can think about is how the school continues to say that 85% of these students are
meeting their reading metrics, when all I can think about are how many kids are included in that
15%. And why does the school not seem interested in doing anything about this? When we
reached out to the head of Special Education and said, we'd like to request mediation to work
with you on this. I keep thinking about what Julie Hackett said to us at the last meeting, which
was parents should be reaching out to us to work with us instead of reaching out to the media.
And what I come back to is the head of Special Education didn't respond back to us with, yes,
that's great, let's get together to make this better. What we got back was a simple sentence that
said to request mediation from this individual. What we received, a couple of weeks later was a
response from that individual saying the district has rejected your request for mediation. I don't
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
understand how this is allowed, how this is acceptable. These are people's children. These are
their lives. You know what happens to kids who don't learn to read by the third grade, and I
cannot fathom how people who are tasked with doing this have said we have done all we can,
and we're not going to do anything additional for you. It's not acceptable, and it needs to stop.
Thank you."
Nicole Locher- 242 Grove St: 'For some children in Lexington, the reading curriculum and
instruction can feel like being on a fast car going too fast for them to keep up, to paraphrase
Tracy Chapman. These students want to be someone, they're capable and highly motivated to
be someone, to be a reader, to belong. When you're a student struggling to learn how to read,
you don't feel like somebody, and you don't feel like you belong. We would never expect a child
to automatically love swimming during their beginner lessons, nor would we expect a child to
learn to swim without direct, explicit instruction until they master their swimming skills and are
gradually released into independence. When teachers navigate the reading car to the other DEI
—direct, explicit instruction—they build reading proficiency by taking more time to teach the
essential reading skills systematically in scope and sequence, with explicit instruction and
feedback. They listen to students reading out loud. They correct their mistakes, they use deep
knowledge-building books that build vocabulary and deep comprehension skills of subjects. I
encourage the literacy team and the special educators to navigate the exciting new era of
comprehensive, structured literacy curriculum that offers excellent choices for school districts to
choose from with rich, culturally, and socially diverse books. And also built for differentiated and
flexible instruction. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach that has been promoted by Dr.
Hackett and her letter. There is no dystopic government on Beacon Hill that is going to take
away local control or ban classroom libraries and force Lexington to only use basal anthologies
of yesterday. Please I beg you, steer clear of this false information and fear-mongering that is
frightening parents and teachers. It is not helpful. Teachers, I ask you how curious and open you
are to learning about and from all the other teachers in Massachusetts and district leaders that
are pivoting it away from Units of Study and Reading Recovery intervention, and implementing
this fantastic new generation of comprehensive, structured-literacy curriculum and
interventions. Teachers who are implementing this are already seeing significant improvements
among their struggling readers. Being skeptical of anything new is completely normal. I totally
get it. But teachers, don't let your, don't let your skepticism lead to cynicism. Please don't allow
too many Lexington teachers who are hungry for change and who want to have a voice on the
ELA Curriculum Review Committee. Please listen to them, especially teachers who want to move
away from the disproven Units of Study and Reading Recovery and to adopt comprehensive,
structured literacy, and interventions. Be open to learning and embracing the good news about
improved reading outcomes with evidence-based structured literacy that will help all students
feel like they belong. To be someone, someone who reads. Thank you."
SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
Dr. Hackett reviewed her Superintendent's Report with the School Committee. The highlights
from her report include:
1. Congratulations and Celebrations
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
o Fiske Staff Dancing through the Decades (video)
o Ariana Hargrove Tours Spelman College with Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley
(video)
o Diamond students Kushagra Kumar recently received two national honor roll
medals in mathematics, and Viraj Rastogi is the Massachusetts State Chess
Championship for Grade 6!
o Diamond Middle School students entered the MassDOT High Division snow plow
naming contest for 2023-2024, and they won with "Snow Place Like Home!"
o Youth Art Month, there will be an art show on February 11 from 2:00 -4:00 PM.
2. We All Belong
o The Power of Lanuae®A Community Conversation
o Upcomin Holidays & Observances
3. LHS Principal Search
o Current Interim Principal, Mr. Andrew Baker, and current interim Associate
Principal, Mr. Dan Melia, are able to apply for the permanent positions.
o There will be surveys going out to students and the community.
4. K-5 Literacy Presentation Follow-up
o Mid-Year Literacy Data
o K-5 Literac FAQs
5. Lexington High School Feasibility Study
o Working Groups
o Community Forum #3
o School Building Committee
o Lexington Visit to Academies of Loudoun in Virginia
o Student-School Building Committee (S-SBC)
School Committee Questions/Comments:
Ms. Sawhney mentioned that since the last meeting went so long, there was no time for the
School Committee to discuss the K-5 Literacy presentation. She would like to know when there
will be time scheduled to have a conversation on this with the whole School Committee. Ms.
Cuthbertson replied that the last meeting's presentation can be discussed at this meeting, and
they can allot time in another School Committee meeting if needed. Dr. Hackett added that we
can come back to this topic until the questions are answered. Dr. Hackett has a sentence in her
report that says, "From our perspective, if there were irrefutable gains in student outcomes, it
would be logical to change to a new curriculum." Ms. Sawhney suggested clarifying this
sentence before sending it out to the community so the understanding is clearer. Ms.
Cuthbertson added that at the next meeting, there will be time to discuss the Systemic Barriers
report which will include literacy information.
Mr. Freeman asked Dr. Hackett if the bolded statement (the same one Ms. Sawhney mentioned)
is specifically related to the legislation that is being proposed. Dr. Hackett replied, "Yes, that's
correct. And it was actually a statement that was in the letter that was signed by 300 people."
Ms. Jay is also a bit confused over the timing of this, "it's difficult to absorb some of this new
data"; she needs a chance to process it a little bit. She brought up how there isn't time on this
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
agenda to discuss the presentation from the last School Committee meeting. She would
welcome an opportunity at a later date to discuss and ask questions about that presentation.
Ms. Cuthbertson urged the School Committee to ask questions at this meeting. Mr. Freeman
was expecting to see time for discussion on this agenda
Dr. Hackett spoke about the changing agenda items: "What happened with the agenda, I think,
was that the Owners Project Manager wanted an item on, and then that changed, so that one
came off. And it looks like the literacy presentation isn't listed there and it should be. We are
going to talk about that, it is under the literacy update. Sara Calleja will be with us. You don't
have to ask any questions now if you don't want to, but you certainly should feel comfortable
asking questions if you do want to." She also mentioned that Ms. Lenihan's questions can be
asked tonight. Ms. Cuthbertson added that she thinks that it's helpful if questions are raised
tonight, even if there isn't an entire discussion because it would be helpful for the literacy team.
Ms. Sawhney suggested having a separate meeting for this.
Ms. Jay asked Dr. Hackett the following about the LHS Principal Search: "I was just curious about
both the timeline, which you did address in the Superintendent Report. But typically, there is a
process for selecting the team, the interview team. Often, that includes faculty members,
parents, and School Committee members. Do you know what that process is going to be?" Dr.
Hackett replied, "I do, we had mapped out the process before when we were working to fill the
position permanently last year, and we gathered up names of interested individuals. So we'll be
going back to that signup sheet and contacting people and having a representative group of
people to join us in the conversations like we have in the past. And for School Committee
members, I would suggest I can't remember who's doing what role at this point in time, but high
school liaison would be a good fit to this particular task" Initial and final interviews will be held
the last week in February.
Mr. Freeman stated; "I just wanted to just say publicly, I do look at the agendas. And I do look at
our School Committee, you know, things well in advance. I know, even at previous Community
Speaks, people have somewhat suggested that we don't do our research and we don't read our
documents, but I think it's important for people to know that, yes, we do. And while this
agenda, you know, wasn't necessarily questioned ahead of time, I don't think that should
suggest that we're not looking at these things because we are"
MID-YEAR LITERACY DATA PRESENTATION
Sara Calleja, K-5 ELA & Literacy Department Head, Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Data &
Strategy, and Dr. Hackett presented this slideshow.
School Committee Questions/Comments:
Mr. Freeman asked, "We have all of these benchmarks here that are taking place; why are
parents and students experiencing so many problems with identifying, let's just use
dyslexia as an example, why is that still occurring if we have these benchmarks periodically
happening?" Ms. Calleja replied, "So the why is probably a very good question and might
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
require a longer conversation. But I think it's important to know that these benchmarks are the
first assessment that we do in the MTSS model. It's a universal screening. It flags for risk, but it
doesn't diagnose. So after we do a benchmark, we follow up with diagnostic assessments. The
Massachusetts dyslexia guidelines indicate that anytime we see a risk of dyslexia, we should
make that known and talk about the child and talk about a possible referral process. So the
process that I think is being talked about a lot in the course material I hear is that referral
process, the path to get to a referral. And then perhaps the evaluation process once a child is
referred, but there is no diagnostic information that would lead us to a Special Ed determination
that would come strictly from the benchmark data" Mr. Freeman also asked if assessments and
parent-teacher conferences are aligned. Ms. Calleja answered, "We built the assessment
calendar, we try to do so in alignment with the parent-teacher conferences, and they do fall
relatively close to each other, the regulation from the state has to notify families within 30 days.
Part of that is because the notification involves more than just the data points, we also need to
notify families of what the plans are for the child."
Ms. Cuthbertson spoke about how it's great that benchmarks are paired with parent-teacher
conferences. She asked if the mClass screener goes all the way through middle school. Ms.
Calleja explained that, as of now, it only goes to sixth grade. Ms. Cuthbertson added how it
might be helpful to have a screener that is a standard across grades.
Ms. Sawhney suggested having a community forum that goes over the letters that parents
received to help them better understand. Ms. Calleja explained that we are calling parents
before they receive a letter, "And every family is entitled to a follow up discussion with a literacy
specialist or a special education or a teacher or whoever is working with your child in literacy."
Mr. Freeman asked for a copy of the letter that parents receive.
Ms. Sawhney asked, "What is the number of African American children we're talking about?Are
they 100? Are they 10? Do you know the absolute numbers?" Dr. Hackett replied that it was in
the 40's.
Mr. Freeman questioned Slide 10, "How are the black African American students doing at
Harrington? Are they at 88%? Or are they at a lower percent? Is it significantly lower? I'm just
wondering why these schools, and why was this slide created the way it is? It makes me
question if we are highlighting our successes and not necessarily addressing the unsuccessful
opportunities that we've had for certain students" Ms. Calleja replied, "The reason why we are
highlighting these particular instances is because we would like to find out what's working,
where things are working for Black and African American students and our Hispanic students
because we'd like to replicate the practices that are working. And it's important to us to really,
you know, when there are certain implementation factors that differ from school to school and
from teacher to teacher, and sometimes, we might be supporting certain schools in different
ways. And so we need to be really honest about where we couldn't be more equitable with
perhaps our resources and our time and our support. So I think that's why we're looking at this
because we want to find out what's working well and then replicate that" Ms. Calleja also
pointed out that there's a link in the presentation that breaks down each school.
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
Ms. Jay would like to know, "How can we relate all this data in a way that we can sort of really
figure out what's going on?" Dr. Hackett; "I think what you are asking for is the data behind the
data. And that's what Ms. Sawhney got to see when she came to the pre-data meeting. So, by
student, you would follow the progression. And, for example, you can visually see kids who are
in the red, who are significantly below who are moving to the yellow, who then move on to the
green. And you can see, by a scan of the colors, who is progressing appropriately and those who
are not progressing appropriately, there is a robust conversation about what type of
intervention is needed for that child. So I think, given the level of interest in the type of
questions that you're asking, it would be very helpful for School Committee members to all
attend a pre-data meeting so you can actually see how it's done". Ms. Sawhney spoke about
what she saw at the pre-data meeting.
Ms. Cuthbertson asked if the students who are not meeting benchmarks, if they aren't already
receiving special education services related to reading in these areas, then are they are being
targeted for interventions. Ms. Calleja responded, "They're absolutely receiving intervention if
they're not already on an IEP." Ms. Cuthbertson added, "If they are on an IEP for something else,
but now we're seeing these issues, too, that is being flagged and forwarded to special
education, or are you doing interventions first? How is that working?" Ms. Calleja replied that
"that can be complex; if the student doesn't have reading goals on their IEP, but they do flag on
the literacy screener, the literacy team will do an intervention, and it will be a discussion with
the Special Education Team depending on how things go about whether reading goals need to
be added to the IEP."
Mr. Freeman circled back to a comment that Dr. Hackett made about the literacy department
and the special education department working together. He added that, "It sounds
like to me that might need to be tightened up a bit and made a little bit easier." Dr. Hackett said,
"Our systems are becoming better built, better structured, and we're going to see more fluidity
between literacy and special ed."
Ms. Cuthbertson spoke about how Orton Gillingham's services are sometimes given in general
education.
Ms. Jay asked to revisit Slide 12. She spoke about how we want all of our students to be able to
read, "I believe everybody involved with this, within the district and outside the
district, are looking for that, for us to really shoot for that 100%," She asked about the
curriculum in grades one and two. She also asked if interventions are "pullout interventions" or
whether they're brought into the classroom during regular literacy blocks, and if that differs
from student to student. Ms. Calleja responded with, "The most intensive interventions are
done by our literacy specialists. And those are typically done in a pullout setting because they
require separate materials and also we want the students to be able to really focus without the
distractions of what's going on in the classroom. But many of our interventions can be done
inside the classroom by the classroom teacher. And so that's one of the things that we are doing
coaching around this year is supporting any classroom teacher who may need support in
identifying the need of a small group of students and then delivering a small group with
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
consistency and also being responsible for prom risk monitoring that group once a month" Ms.
Jay and Ms. Calleja further discussed watching the progress of students. Ms. Jay also asked, "Is
there a way to do some differentiation and in the kind of regular classroom literacy blocks with
perhaps more structured materials or groupings to get them to build on those phonics
fundamentals?" Ms. Calleja responded, "Over the last few years, we've invested heavily in
decodable texts, which are texts that are written to match phonics patterns that children have
learned. And our K, One, and Two teachers have access to decodable texts so that they can
match texts to students based on wherever they are in their own development. In terms of
decoding, it is really important that students have the opportunity to apply newly-learned
phonics skills directly into connected text and make meaning from those texts so that word
reading isn't always in isolation. Because we still want to develop the motivation and the
comprehension of the reader and that identity of being a reader." They continued to discuss the
different types of literacy curriculum in Lexington.
Aditya Gulati spoke on behalf of a student representative. This student asked about the
successes at Bowman and pointed out that Bowman has a "privileged population." This student
asked, "Do we have other examples of non-historical minority schools, non-white, non-Asian
schools that such changes were also implemented in, and shown some success through?" Dr.
Kavanaugh responded that, "What we find across our elementary schools is the percent of
students lower in either economically disadvantaged or lower income, depending on which
definition you're using, doesn't actually vary a whole lot, school to school and Lexington" and so
"that doesn't fully explain the positive result that we're seeing at Bowman." Aditya asked
further about data on implementing the program that Bowman used at other schools. Dr.
Kavanaugh answered, "Part of what we're doing now is to really focus on those implementation
details and differences. So one of the examples that was alluded to today and that we're
exploring further is scheduling differences." She also mentioned that different schools have
different curricula investments for example.
Mr. Freeman asked how many "OG" certified teachers we have in the district. Ms. Cuthbertson
read from slides, "So in the literacy department, so general education, we have six. And in
special education, we have 10." Mr. Freeman asked if they are spread across all of the
elementary schools and middle schools. Ms. Calleja responded that all of the ones that Ms.
Cuthbertson just spoke of are K-5, and they are spread across all of the elementary schools. Mr.
Freeman also asked if our district prefers Wilson over OG. Ms. Calleja replied that, "the reason
we're intrigued with Wilson is because it matches the Fundations MTSS structure. So
that when students are pulled out from their classroom instruction, it's the same materials it's
the same language, and they don't have to code-switch between one method of learning and
another. It's just that Wilson, the intensive program is much slower and more systematic and
repetitive for students who need that level of intensity." Ms. Calleja added that Wilson is based
on OG, "they are related." Mr. Freeman asked if we offer a certain amount of slots each year for
teachers who want to be certified or if it is voluntary; Ms. Calleja budgets for six, and special
education also has funding for their own. Dr. Hackett added that we can access our grant
funding if more people want access to OG training. Mr. Freeman wonders if there would be a
benefit to having a community discussion about this. Dr. Hackett is reluctant to do that.
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
Ms. Cuthbertson reminded the community that there's a webpage with lots of comprehensive
information about literacy and that this is another way to communicate with everyone.
Ms. Sawhney asked if we are going to get a similar assessment for the middle schools. She
would also like a list of our K-5 math assessments.
Dr. Hackett made the comment, "I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, we're in the
middle of implementations, if you were to throw out what we have, we would be starting a
new. Probably, we would have to scrap Fundations in that process, from what I can understand,
because that's not part of these new curricula being forwarded by the Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education. And maybe they'll adopt different models with the
revision to the bill and whatnot. But there are, I mean, there are big questions to be had. And
that, again, the point to underscore here is all the time that we spend on the politics is time
away from resolving the issue and the thing that we want to improve."
Ms. Jay asked where we are in the curriculum review process, and Ms. Calleja answered that we
are in the middle of the audit process. Next year is our research year. Ms. Jay asked if teachers
volunteer to be on the curriculum review team. Ms. Calleja answered that they do; "We have
we have teachers from every grade level in elementary, and then we also have every grade level
at the middle school, and lots of representation at the high school. And at the elementary level,
we have a special educator on every grade level subgroup." Ms. Jay suggested bringing back
curriculum review presentations to School Committee meetings.
Ms. Sawhney shared that she was speaking to a School Committee member from another
district and they informed her that for about 1500-1600 elementary school kids, it cost about
$2.2 million to change their curriculum. Ms. Calleja informed Ms. Sawhney that the curriculum
review process is budgeted for about $10 to $15,000 a year. Dr. Hackett added that the cost of
adopting one curriculum would be around $1 million, which is different from the revisions in the
curriculum review process.
Ms. Cuthbertson read from questions that Ms. Lenihan gave her: "How much flexibility do
teachers have, if they're, for example, if they are looking at their classroom of students, and
they seem to need all, as a collective group, or most of them need a little bit more time on
Fundations. And maybe, you know, a little bit less time in the workshop, you know, they can do
a little bit more. Do they have some of that wiggle room or flexibility to address the needs of
the students in front of them, or is Fundations kind of just like lockstep everybody's doing the
same thing at the same time across a grade level?" Ms. Calleja answered, "When teachers are
learning the program, they learn it that way so that they can understand the curriculum. But
once they've learned the curriculum and how it works, they can differentiate it, they can do the
part that the class needs whole group as a whole group. And then they can split the kids into
small groups to get what they need" Another question is directed to Dr. Hackett; "Could you
clarify that you haven't given a directive for educators to not speak to parents about the ELA
curriculum?" Dr. Hackett responded by saying, "No, of course I've not given a directive
that they can't speak to parents. What did occur is that teachers came to us and came to
administration and said that parents had been, um I don't know what the word for it is, but
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED
basically, they asked us to intervene with parents who had been trying to question them about
literacy practices, and they were uncomfortable. So staff reached out to Sara and others and
said, Could you please help? And in which case, I said, you know what, if anybody has any
questions, refer them to literacy or the literacy coach because they can help in any way
that they can. So that was it." Ms. Calleja added that teachers said there was no way to win that
conversation with families.
Ms. Cuthbertson spoke about how "at the high school level, we typically don't give our teachers
a lot of experience with identifying those challenges with reading that you might see present in
other ways." She would like us to think about how are we supporting our secondary educators.
Dr. Hackett added, "Secondary literacies are very different than what we've talked about
tonight, in all kinds of different ways. But we can have a more detailed discussion about
middle and high school, what happens how that's handled. It won't look the same. And I'm
reacting to Ms. Sawhney's earlier comment about do we have the same sets of assessments, we
don't."
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Vote Superintendent's FY 2025 Budget
• Budget voting was postponed -to be determined when.
POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS
• Ms. Sawhney spoke about how she is worried about generative Aland social media. She
is working with Matt Daggett from Town Meeting. She is requesting a two-person task
force (her and Matt Daggett) so they can come back and present their research.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Sawhney made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Mr. Freeman seconded. Ms.
Cuthbertson took a roll call vote, and passed 4-0.
JK 2/13/24-APPROVED