HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-26-SC-minLSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 1
LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE
OPEN SESSION
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Town Hall, Selectmen’s Meeting Room
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA
Present: Chair, Bill Hurley; Jessie Steigerwald; Judy Crocker; Alessandro Alessandrini; Eileen
Jay; Mary Czajkowski, Superintendent
Student Representative Abigail Schwartz
Others Present: Ian Dailey (Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations); Carol
Pilarski (Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and Professional
Development); Maureen Kavanaugh (Director of Planning and Assessment); Kate Hickey,
Applied Geographics (AppGeo)
The Minutes were taken by Paula McDonough, Executive Assistant to the School Committee
The meeting convened at 6:03PM
Call to Order and welcome: Chairman Hurley called the meeting to order, and introduced
committee members.
Motion to go into Executive Session
Mr. Hurley stated: “I move that the School Committee go into Executive Session under
Exemption 3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining pertaining to LEA Unit
D, and Exemption 2 – to discuss strategy for negotiation with Non-Union Personnel –
Superintendent Contract to return, to open session. Further, as chair, I declare that an
executive session is necessary to protect the negotiating and bargaining position of the School
Committee.” (Steigerwald seconded the motion)
Hurley -AYE; Steigerwald -AYE; Crocker -AYE; Alessandrini -AYE; Jay –AYE
6:03 PM Executive Session Convened
7:09 PM Executive Session Ends and Return to Open Session
7:09 PM Chair called a brief recess
7:15 PM Return to Open Session and Welcome
The Chair called the Public Session back to order and invited public comment.
The minutes for the Executive Session are in a separate document.
The School Committee returned to Open Session at 7:15 pm.
Public Comments:
Sandy Beebee, 10 Page Road (Harrington, PTA) - Opposes redistricting into Harrington, this will
create a huge potential overcrowding.
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 2
Matt Snyder, 34 Oak Street - A single year solution will not solve the problem at the root cause.
“You’re tearing up families, you’re tearing up neighborhoods”. There is a financial impact on
home values.
Elaine Ashton, 32 Cliffe Avenue – Expressed concerned with Lextended Day registration. Ms.
Ashton logged on to register at 6:00AM and is currently #10 on the waiting list for Harrington.
Todd Lancaster, 77 North Street – Reconsider the most recent proposal to move the incoming
kindergarteners from the Liberty Heights neighborhood to a different school next year. Mr.
Lancaster asked for consideration in leaving neighborhood intact at Bowman. Moving kids who
are already established at a school has some psychologically disadvantage.
Ben Solky, 11 Suzanne Road – Home values; psychological impact of moving established kids.
Sharon Swan, 54 Taft Avenue – Connections between students reach beyond the grade.
“Kindergartners do not just make friends with kindergartners,” Swan said. “They make friends
with all ages.” Requests that information be mailed out to families.
Danit Netzer, 17 John Poulter Road – Opposes the redistricting of two 50 unit complexes to
Harrington. Harrington is at capacity as well.
Geolf Alperin, 9 Dane Road – Harrington School District, supports not moving the students from
established districts. Strongly supports the buffer zones. Expressed concerned with Lextended
Day registration.
Chairman Hurley thanked all the parents who were present and who shared their thoughts.
Chairman Hurley addressed the public in regards to redistricting. Mr. Hurley stated “children
will be moved”, and any parent whose child is moved is going to feel as though their child has
been impacted in a negative way. If and when we get a new Hastings which will accommodate
600 students, hundreds of students will move. There’s no way to avoid redistricting. Mr. Hurley
thanked the 12 parents from the Student Assignment Committee (SAC).
Dr.Czajkowski shared two handouts with the School Committee; HO.1-FY17 Snapshot of Pre-
Registration by Grade and School as of April 25, 2016 (Based on Pre-Registrations + Promotion
of Current Students); HO.2-Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools –
Recommendation to the School Committee April 26, 2016.
Superintendent’s Announcements:
Dr.Czajkowski passed out HO.3-Current METCO Student Enrollment – by school and grade and
asked the committee to review it. This was a request made by the School Committee. Questions
asked by the committee were as follows:
• Will the administration continue to follow the practice of assigning small groups of
students in a school in a grade? Answer: Yes, we are following the same practices as in
previous years.
• What is the total number of students from Boston who would be admitted? Answer:
METCO is a space availability program. The goal is to place at least 20 students to
replace the 20 students who are graduating and to maintain our current district enrollment
of 250 METCO students.
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 3
• How will the assignments be made taking the capacity issues into account while also
making sure students from Boston are not isolated? Answer: Students are placed where
there are openings. Every effort is made to not place a child in isolation.This is done in
consultation with the METCO Director, principals, superintendent and parents.
• Are some schools considered “full” and not able to offer slots? Answer: There have
been years when a grade at a particular school was full and a METCO student was not
placed in that grade. Dr. Czajkowski shared the (HO.3) – Current METCO Student
Enrollment – by school and grade.
• Which schools have capacity and would Bridge, Bowman and Fiske be able to
accommodate our students from Boston and what is the plan if there are schools where
METCO students are not assigned for 2016-2017? Would there be a one-year gap or
longer, how would students be reintroduced later? Answer: From the enrollment sheet
provided when there is a zero there would be a one-year gap in subsequent years as the
class matriculates unless space becomes available in first and second grade due to student
decrease in enrollment.
Ms. Steigerwald shared that those questions were sent to her by community members.
School Improvement Plans will be placed on the School Committee Agenda for June 7th. The
Elementary Principals will share a power point presentation; the two Middle School Principals
will do the same followed by the High School Principal.
Dr.Czajkowski is seeking additional feedback on the District Improvement Plan for 2016-2017
from the School Committee.
Dr.Czajkowski is working on a Personnel Handbook for next year. Attorney Colby Brunt,
School Committee Attorney, is currently review the handbook.
Dr.Czajkowski met with Carl Valente, Town Manager; Donna Hooper, Chief Information
Officer; Tom Plati, K-12 Director of Educational Technology & Assessment; and Marianne
McKenna, Director of Technology to discuss further collaboration between town and school
regarding technology. Each department (town and school) technology staff would meet to
discuss a shared goal. This shared goal would then be presented to the School Committee and
Board of Selectmen for further discussion.
Mr. Hurley asked Dr.Czajkowski about the Director of Technology position: Answer: We have
a final candidate for the Director of Educational Technology position and that there is a
scheduled visit this Friday, April 29th. The candidate will spend the day meeting with staff,
students, and administrators.
Ms. Steigerwald asked that on the next School Committee agenda, the next year’s goals be added
for the committee’s review. She would like to look at the goals that were met and not yet met.
School Committee Member Announcements:
Jay: The Lexington Community Coalition will be having its fourth meeting of the year on
Wednesday, May 4th. Ms. Jay encourages the community to attend.
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 4
Crocker: Reminded everyone that the community has the a town has a referendum vote on May
3rd.
Ms. Crocker on behalf of the committee recognized Ms. McDonough on Administrative
Professional Day and presented a card and flowers.
Alessandrini: None
Steigerwald: Addressed the public in regards to the referendum vote on May 3rd and asked for
everyone’s support.
Ms. Steigerwald and Ms. Crocker spent the day at the State House and met with Senator Barrett
and Representative Jay Kaufman.
Hurley: None
Chairman, Hurley took the agenda out of order to discuss the Public Hearing on School Choice
first.
Agenda:
A.1 – Public Hearing on School Choice – Vote on School Choice
Summary: Per the Massachusetts General Law, the School Committee is required to vote
annually as to whether the school district will participate in the School Choice Program. This
vote is required to be submitted to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Mr. Hurley opened the floor to the public and asked if anyone had any comments.
Matt Snyder, 34 Oak Street – Mr. Snyder strongly suggests that Lexington Public Schools not
support School Choice.
Mr. Alessandrini noted that this has no impact on the METCO program. Mr. Alessandrini also
spoke regarding the METCO Program which started about 45 years ago.
A vote on School Choice will be placed on a future School Committee agenda.
Consent Agenda:
1. Vote to Approve Minutes of:
a. Vote to Approve Minutes of March 12, 2016
b. Vote to Approve Minutes of March 30, 2016
2. Vote to Approve Lexington High School 2016-2017 German Student Exchange Trip to
Erding and Berlin, Germany, June 24, 2017 – July 14, 2017
Motion to approve consent agenda Items 1a-b and 2. (Steigerwald/Alessandrini)
Ms. Crocker asked to amend minutes of March 12, 2016 to read as “The School Committee
attended the Ad Hoc Student Assignment Committee (SAC)”.
Motion to approve consent agenda Items 1a-as amended, 1b and 2.
The motion was approved (5-0).
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 5
Student Representative Abigail Schwartz – Lexington High School students are having an art
sale and art show on Friday from 6-8PM.
Agenda continued:
A.2 – Vote to Approve Lexington High School 2016-2017 French Exchange Trip to
Anthony, France and Geneva, Switzerland, February 16, 2017-March 3, 2017
Presenter: Laura Lasa, Principal
Marie Murphy, Dept. Head of Foreign Languages
Beckie Rankin
School Committee members thanked Ms Murphy and Ms Rankin and made comments in regards
to the trip.
Motion to Approve the Lexington High School 2016-2017 French Exchange Trip to Anthony,
France and Geneva, Switzerland, February 16, 2017-March 3, 2017. (Alessandrini/Crocker)
The Motion was approved (5-0).
A.3 – FY 16 3rd Quarterly Financial Reports
Presenter: Ian Dailey, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations
Summary: The current balance projected as of the Third Quarter Financial Report is a surplus of
$2,791,740. The projection assumes all budgeted positions are filled and depicts actual
expenditures and encumbrances for the expense budget. The major source of the surplus in
Salaries and Wages is increased savings generated from turnover in staff, unpaid leaves of
absence, savings generated from gaps in employment due to vacancies, and our ability to better
stay within budgeted FTE levels through improved planning. For expenses, prior FY16 financial
reports assumed all program-level expense budgets would be fully expended. The third quarter
report reflects actual expenditures and current encumbrances for all expense budgets. The FY16
budget for expense lines closes on May 1. It is unlikely that program managers will spend
$705,223 in the expense lines. However, we are expecting a significant number of orders after
school vacation ends and staff returns to school.
A summary table is provided below:
Appropriation Summary FY 2016
Budget
Transfers/
Adjustments
FY 2016
Budget (adj)
YTD
Expended
YTD
Encumbered
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
Salary and Wages 78,675,324$ (48,000)$ 78,627,324$ 54,764,253$ 21,776,554$ 2,086,517$
Expenses 13,384,992$ 48,000$ 13,432,992$ 8,506,486$ 4,221,282$ 705,223$
Total 1100 Lexington Public Schools 92,060,316$ -$ 92,060,316$ 63,270,739$ 25,997,836$ 2,791,740$
Salaries & Wages
A detailed listing of the Salaries and Wages portion of the budget projection can be found
attached. Since the issuance of the Second Quarter Financial Report, the overall salaries and
wages budget projection has changed from a surplus of $1,828,383 to a surplus of $2,086,517.
Projections are based on known positions and estimated wage settlements for units with unsettled
contracts. The FY16 general fund operating budget included a total of 1,035.73 FTE system-
wide. At this time, the current general fund operating budget has increased to a total of 1,046.26,
an FTE deficit of 10.53 FTE. This is partially attributable to FTE transfers from grants (during
Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016), the increase in hours for Full-Day Kindergarten Assistants (15
hours per week to 18 hours per week), and supplemental positions not included in the budget
developed last fall. The Fiscal Year 2015 Third Quarter Financial Report included an FTE deficit
of 26.97 FTE. Therefore, in Fiscal Year 2016 this data point has improved. This has a direct
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 6
effect on the projected balance in the Salaries & Wages portion of the projection, creating a
surplus.
Expenses
Since the issuance of the Second Quarter Financial Report, the overall expense budget projection
has changed from a deficit of $261,183 to a surplus of $705,223. Prior financial reports assumed
all program-level budgets would be full expended, with adjustments made to known program
impacts. These known program impacts included Special Education Out of District Tuition,
Special Education Transportation, Homeless Transportation, and Regular Education
Transportation. Projections in these categories have remained relatively stable. These are the
largest expense lines requiring close monitoring due to their high degree of variability. The
operating budget closes May 1, at that time budget funds are frozen, to determine if there are
district-wide unmet needs to be addressed. The projected expense budget surplus is described at
the summary level below (detailed table is attached):
Expense Budget Summary FY16 Budget
(adj)
Third
Quarter
Projected
Surplus
Building-Based Program Budgets 510,497$ 133,135$
K-5 Curriculum Program Budgets 364,627$ 12,538$
6-8 Curriculum Program Budgets 281,462$ 24,486$
9-12 Curriculum Program Budgets 349,250$ 53,349$
K-12 Curriculum Program Budgets 1,684,533$ 322,617$
Special Education Program Budgets 677,835$ 30,661$
Counseling Program Budgets 86,249$ 4,215$
Out of District Tuition 5,358,954$ 136,655$
District-wide Transportation 2,767,616$ (220,117)$
District-wide Administration 1,351,971$ 207,684$
Total 13,432,992$ 705,223$
Consistent with prior quarterly financial reports, a detailed review of the tuition line is included
below.
Line 41 - Tuition
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget included a 50% reduction to the High Risk category of tuition,
effectively lowering the tuition budget by $773,580. This had a direct affect to Line 41 of the
expense budget. This budget line is being monitored very closely, as such a detailed breakdown
can be seen below:
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 7
Tuition Budget Categories
FY16 Budget
(approved by
ATM)
FY 16
Projected
Expenditures
Favorable/
(Unfavorable)
High Risk Budget $1,547,160 $683,334
Short Term Placements $113,677 $261,228
Settlements $258,764 $852,376
Tuition $6,915,422 $7,181,046
Total Tuition $8,835,023 $8,977,983 -$142,960
Reduction to High Risk -$773,580
Less LABBB Credit -$250,000 -$250,000
Less CB Reimbursement -$3,029,205 -$3,190,110
Tuition Offsets -$4,052,785 -$3,440,110 -$612,675
Total $4,782,238 $5,537,873 -$755,635
High Risk Adjustment -$315,574
Operating Budget Projection $4,782,238 $5,222,299 -$440,061
One-time Budget Transfer $576,716
Adjusted Projected Surplus / (Deficit)$136,655
As seen above when comparing the budget to the current tuition projection, a deficit of $755,635
is projected. It is anticipated that $315,574 of the $683,334 included in the current high risk
portion of the FY16 projected tuition expenditures will not be realized, and this adjustment is
included in the projection accordingly. This reduces the projected deficit to $440,061. The
Second Quarter Financial Report included a one-time budget transfer of $576,716 to offset the
projected deficit and partially offset the budget increase in the FY17 budget. This results in the
currently projected Out of District Tuition surplus of $136,655.
The Fiscal Year 2017 budget re-establishes the High Risk portion of the Tuition budget to 100%
funded. A table analyzing the high risk portion of the Out of District Tuition budget and budget
surpluses or (deficits) each year has been compiled to monitor trends. This table can be seen
below:
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
(projected)
High Risk Budget $1,645,452 $1,195,325 $1,547,160
High Risk Budget Reduction -$773,580
Net High Risk Budget $1,645,452 $1,195,325 $773,580
Tuition Surplus / (Deficit)$852,485 $61,145 -$440,061
High Risk Budget Cut Reversal $0 $0 $773,580
Normalized High Risk Budget $1,645,452 $1,195,325 $1,547,160
Normalized Tuition Surplus / (Deficit)$852,485 $61,145 $333,519
Percent of High Risk Returned 51.81%5.12%21.56%
The table above compares the tuition budget surplus or (deficit) by fiscal year relative to the
High Risk portion of the budget in each respective fiscal year. The table above is not adjusted for
the anticipated one-time transfers identified in the prior section in order to control for variables
and isolate the analysis to the budget surplus relative to the high risk portion of the tuition budget
(i.e. if past budgeting practice had not been changed and no one-time transfers took place). The
chart includes adjustments to Fiscal Year 2016 to have a consistent comparison with prior fiscal
years where the High Risk portion of the tuition budget was not reduced by 50%. It should be
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 8
noted, at the time the Fiscal Year 2016 budget was being created, Fiscal Year 2015 final figures
were not available. The above table illustrates that budgeting practices in the Tuition line have
improved over time, but predictability can be challenging. There is a high degree of sensitivity
with the tuition line since one out of district placement can range from approximately $46,000 to
$367,000 (includes transportation). This data continues to be analyzed and monitored to
determine if any recommended adjustments would be included in the development of the FY18
budget.
Grant Summary
Throughout the fiscal year grants are monitored since awards are often not known at the time of
building a budget. A summary of budget, actual awards, and projected balances can be seen
below for grants:
FY15 Award -
Level Funded for
FY16 Budget
FY16 Actual
Award
Sequestration,
enrollment,
and low
income change
% Change in
Award
Revised FY16
Projection as
of March 31*
Projected
(deficit)/
Balance FY16
Awards
Federal Grant Title (col.C - col. I)
Title I 151,166$ 172,031$ 20,865$ 13.80%171,359$ 672$
Title II 85,482$ 86,465$ 983$ 1.15%86,465$ 0$
Title III 66,030$ 74,693$ 8,663$ 13.12%74,693$ -$
Title III Carry-Forward -$ 10,460$ 10,460$ 10,460$ $ -
94-142 1,547,887$ 1,567,873$ 19,986$ 1.29%1,470,853$ 97,020$
94-142 Carry-Forward 118,078$ 118,078$ 118,078$ -$
Early Childhood 40,067$ 40,075$ 8$ 0.02%39,301$ 774$
Total Federal Grants 1,890,632$ 2,069,675$ 179,043$ 29.38%1,971,209$ 98,466$
4.76%
State Grant Title
METCO 1,285,898$ 1,488,884$ 202,986$ 15.79%1,395,135$ 93,750$
Essential School Health 116,440$ 129,005$ 12,565$ 10.79%129,005$ -$
Academic Support 7,400$ 5,200$ (2,200)$ -29.73%5,200$ -$
Full-Day Kindergarten 177,440$ 177,440$ -$ 0.00%167,221$ 10,219$
Special Education Entitleme 51,219$ 53,340$ 2,121$ 4.14%55,220$ (1,880)$
Total State Grants 1,638,397$ 1,853,869$ 215,472$ 0.99%1,733,456$ 102,089$
3,529,029$ 3,923,544$ 394,515$ 11.18%3,704,665$ 200,555$
School Committee Members:
School Committee members had questions and comments and thanked Mr. Dailey for his update.
A.4 – Redistricting, Enrollment and Space-Capacity Presentation
Presenter: Superintendent Mary Czajkowski; Maureen Kavanaugh (Director of Planning and
Assessment); Kate Hickey, Applied Geographics (AppGeo)
Summary: After the 3rd Public Forum on April 12, 2016, which included feedback from parents
and the School Committee and proposed discussion of buffer zones in the future, additional
scenarios will be presented on April 26th. These additional scenarios will include only incoming
kindergarten students with no siblings for the 2016-2017 school year.
After three public forums on redistricting students, a new set of plans was presented to the
School Committee and parents on April 26 by consulting firm Applied Geographics, which
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 9
recommended only moving incoming kindergarten students without siblings already in the
schools.
Dr. Czajkowski made some introductory remarks: This has been an evolving process in which
multiple stakeholders have been involved, including parents, principals, central office
administration, School Committee members, and our consultants. Dr. Czajkowski acknowledged
the Student Assignment Committee (SAC) who have met since June 29, 2015. Since that time
there have been sixteen meetings.
Three public forums were held where approximately one hundred parents and community
members were present. Dr. Czajkowski stated this was a transparent process.
“We took your feedback very seriously, as you shared information, we changed presentations.”
Each and every scenario that is presented will have consequences and it will impact our students
and families. Making no changes for September 2016 will also have consequences and impact
on our students and families. There are currently 95 registered kindergarten students at Bowman
out of those 95 there are 43 students with no siblings. Thirty students in a classroom is not
educationally sound.
Dr. Czajkowski stated that the scenarios being presented at tonight’s meeting only involve
kindergarten without siblings. This does not involve moving currently established students
enrolled in any elementary schools.
A PowerPoint Presentation was presented by Maureen Kavanaugh (Director of Planning and
Assessment); Kate Hickey, Applied Geographics (AppGeo).
HO.2-Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools – Recommendation to
School Committee – April 26, 2016
Location of All Incoming K Students (9/1/16) with No Older Elementary Sibling – Impact of
Potential Scenarios: 37 to 45 Students
Bowman Incoming K’s No Older Elementary Sibling: With Components
• 24 out of 42 incoming K without elementary siblings captured by components
Three scenarios were presented to the School Committee as follows:
Scenario: (A) Bowman K to Harrington; Total Impact: 45 Students
Scenario: (B) Bowman K to Estabrook; Total Impact: 37 Students
Scenario: (C) Bowman K to Hastings; Total Impact: 37 Students
HO.1-FY 17 Snapshot of Pre-Registration By Grade and School as of April 25, 2016 (Based on
Kindergarten Pre-Registrations + Promotion of Current Students)
There were questions and comments regarding to the Power Point presentation from the School
Committee: In reviewing the scenarios members will take into account (1) safety, (2) distance
and logistics with respect to buses, (3) keeping as much of the community as possible together,
and (4) parity in class sizes.
Chairman Hurley asked members where they stood on the concept of buffer zones.Members are
in agreement with the concept of buffer zones.
LSC 4.26.16 Meeting Minutes –Approved 6.21.16 10
Chairman Hurley asked the committee to come to a decision within a month in order to allow
time for parents to plan.
School Committee members shared their disapproval of a plan which would move Bowman
students to Estabrook. Hurley shared that he liked the numbers, but his instincts tell him that this
is not the wisest thing to do.
The School Committee made no decisions at tonight’s Tuesday evening meeting, though the
Chair did indicate that one would be made by the end of May. The School Committee Policy
Sub-committee will be meeting twice on Tuesday to begin discussing buffer zones.
9:54 p.m. Adjourn: On a motion made by Hurley and seconded by Steigerwald, the School
Committee voted unanimously 5-0 to adjourn.
Meeting Materials: Agenda; C.1a-Agenda Item Summary: Vote to Approve Minutes of March
12, 2016; C1.b-Agenda Item Summary: Vote to Approve Minutes of March 30, 2016; A.1-
Agenda Item Summary: Public Hearing on School Choice; A.2-Agenda Item Summary: Vote to
Approve Lexington High School 2016-2017 French Exchange Trip to Anthony, France and
Geneva, Switzerland, February 16, 2017 – March 3, 2017; A.3-Agenda Item Summary: FY 16
3rd Quarterly Financial Report; A.4-Agenda Item Summary: Redistricting, Enrollment and
Space-Capacity Presentation; HO.1-FY17 Snapshot of Pre-Registration By Grade and School as
of April 26, 2016 (Based on Kindergarten Pre-Registration + Promotion of Current Students);
HO.2-Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools – Recommendation to
School Committee April 26, 2016
Place on Consent Agenda for SC Approval 6.21.16
Voted Approved by School Committee 6.21.16