TOWN
OF ROCKY HILL
BOARD
OF EDUCATION
BUDGET
WORKSHOP OF
Members
Present: Neil Geldof
Nadine
Bell
Peter
Arico
Mark
Carberry
Charles
McMonigle
Rene
Rivard
Anne
Schmidt
Catherine
Vargas
Members
Absent: Jennifer Viggiano-Grosse
The third budget workshop of the Board
of Education was held on
Pledge
of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Mrs. Boutilier asked each of the
teachers who work closely with administration and who are guests at tonight’s meeting
to introduce themselves.
Chairman Geldof turned the meeting over
to the Finance Committee Chairperson, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt turned the meeting over to
Dr. Vautour for continuation of his program review.
Response
to Information Requests made at January 17, 2006 meeting
Dr. Vautour provided the following
responses to informational requests made at the last budget session:
(1) Grade 4 at
Stevens, if reduced by one teacher, would end up with class sizes of 22.3, the
guideline is 22;
(2) Grade 4 at
West Hill, if reduced by one teacher, would end up with class sizes of 22.8;
(3) Grade 5 at
Stevens, if reduced by one teacher, would end up with class sizes of 24.3, the
guideline is 24; and
(4) Grade 1 at
West Hill, if reduced by one teacher, would end up with class sizes of 21, the
guideline is 20.
Dr. Vautour
stated that every other class analysis exceeded the guidelines by a factor
greater than one, in some instances it was five or six. Mrs. Vargas requested a grid be prepared
showing this information.
Dr. Vautour
asked board members to remember that when constructing the budget, one of the
assumptions he made was adherence to class size guidelines, which is what
prompted the request for an additional grade 3 teacher proposed to be placed at
He said the
plan proposes to take on one school in the first year, so membership rather
than being $3,600 would be $1,200.
During the first year, 2006-07, April and May would be Phase 1 –
planning; May to November would be Phase 2 - mission and vision development;
December, 2007 to December, 2008 would be Phase 3 and would introduce a second
membership fee of $1,200; then December to February would be Phase 4 which
takes us to the 2008-09 school year; in March would be the visit. In the 2008-09 budget, if it were an
elementary school, we would be looking at a cost of approximately $5,000 to
$7,000.
If we then
introduced School B, we would incur a cost of $2,400 representing memberships
for Schools A and B. When you play out
the timetable for School B, the visitation would be scheduled in the 2011-12
school year, again assuming it’s an elementary school, the cost would be
approximately $5,000 to $7,000.
If we then
introduced School C, we would begin the process in 2012-2013 and the annual membership
fees for the three schools would be $3,600 adjusted for inflation. When you play out the timetable for School C,
the visitation would be scheduled in the 2014-15 school year, and assuming
that’s the middle school, we would have a cost of $7,000 to $10,000 for the
site visitation.
So, the
decision to begin involvement in elementary and middle school accreditation for
year one is a cost of $1,200 but you then set in motion roughly an 18 to 24
month window which culminates in the fees for site visits.
Budget
Review
Instructional
Program No. 22 – Special Education
Dr. Vautour explained there is a total
increase of $218,679; salary increases are $159,542; non-salary is $59,137.
Dr. Vautour asked the Board to note
that contained in the tuition account is a $30,000 placeholder which is for an
unanticipated student. They “ballpark”
figure and take an average of the various out-placements. Dr. Vautour stated the tab section the budget
book indicates our knowledge at the present time suggests there will be eight
private placements and nine public placements moving into next year’s
budget. The anticipated tuition for
those seventeen students is $728,811 which does incorporate the $30,000
placeholder. The tab section also
indicates revenues we anticipate receiving from BESB are $4,000, excess cost
calculations suggest we would receive $201,915, and IDEA would be $70,000. That means we anticipate revenues of
$275,915. We would offset those revenues
against the anticipated tuition of $728,811 which means we have placed into the
budget request a general fund amount of $452,896.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if the reimbursement
numbers are subject to change as state or other agencies make adjustments. Dr. Vautour said we think the numbers are
good, we factor them in at the 75% level, which is predicated on (a) these kids
staying through the year, (b) we don’t lose any, and (c) no new ones come in.
Instructional
Program No. 1 – Administration
Dr. Vautour said there is a decrease of
$500 for advertising and postage. That
has been reflected in the 02 account for the past number of years so we decided
to “clean it up.”
Instructional
Program No. 2 – General Administration
Dr. Vautour stated there are 4.45 FTEs
with no change requested, our increase is $4,466; salaries represent $1,256; non-salary
increase is $3,210; and advertising costs have an increase of $2,630.
Instructional
Program No. 3 – Improvement of Instruction
Dr. Vautour stated there is no change
in the 3.0 FTEs; we have a total increase of $10,103. He explained this program
covers the stipends for subject area supervisors (5 at the high school and 4 at
the middle school), team leaders (8 at the middle school) and K-5 coordinators
and subject area supervisors at Stevens and West Hill schools.
Mrs. Schmidt asked about the decrease
in curriculum development. Mrs. Boutilier
stated that she thinks this is reflective of getting caught up from where we
were six or seven years ago and that the majority of the curriculum requests in
this year’s budget are either appropriated for new courses or new textbooks.
Instructional
Program No. 4 – Planning & Research
Dr. Vautour stated this program is
basically the information technology analyst position. There is no increase; any salary adjustments
associated with non-bargaining unit personnel would be reflected in Program 29.
Instructional
Program No. 5 – School Administration
Dr. Vautour stated there is an increase
in FTEs of 1.0, which takes us to 20.35; the total increase is $160,327;
$146,663 is salaries; of that $99,700 is for the assistant principal and
$46,963 reflects salary adjustments for other administrators; non-salary
increase is $13,664. We have proposed
the assistant principal position be split between West Hill and Stevens
schools.
Mrs. Bell asked about Page 5a, Object
112, non-certified staff (hall monitors) what’s the hourly rate. Mr. Turansky said, this year $10.00, which is
up $1.00 from last year. Mrs. Vargas
asked where this was located in previous budgets. Mr. Turansky said they were included in the
line item located above this one; Object 112 concerning non-certified
staff. Last year the state guidelines
said they had to separate security.
Mrs. Vargas asked with regard to the
new assistant principal why it is categorized in Object 111 rather than under administration
with other new positions. Mr. Turansky
explained that applies to new courses.
Mrs. Vargas said it would normally have been broken out so they would
know how much the assistant principal is going to cost. Dr. Vautour said the cost is $99,700.
Instructional
Program No. 23 – Adult Education
Dr. Vautour stated Rocky Hill is part
of a consortium with
Mr. McMonigle asked whether the number
of participants affects the cost and about satisfaction with the program. Dr. Vautour stated that the number of
participants doesn’t affect our cost.
Mrs. Boutilier explained we are very happy with the program and there is
a new director in
Instructional
Program No. 24 – Co-Curricular
Dr. Vautour stated the total increase
for the program is $16,832; salaries are $6,564, non-salary increase is
$10,268. Co-curricular covers stipends
for student activity funds, year books, and school newspapers, etc. There is a slight increase in Object 581 and
stated we have been very aggressive over the past several years fostering a
tolerance or acceptance of diversity which shows in the atmosphere at the high school.
Mrs. Bell asked about the Object 440
increase. Mr. Pitocco explained they
have increased their requests for drama in order to make the program “whole”
and just about fully support it so the participants don’t have to have
spaghetti suppers to support their productions.
He said $5,200 can be broken down as follows, for two shows: costumes,
$1,600, lighting consultant, $600, and for anticipated sound equipment, $3,000. Mrs. Bell asked that Mr. Pitocco provide an
accounting of money raised through ticket sales.
Mrs. Bell asked with regard to the
Object 611 increase also for drama, why are we making drama “whole”, but not
others; they all have fundraisers. Mr.
Pitocco said others are whole. Football, for example, is whole but chooses to
do fundraisers for enhancements to their program, but if their booster club
went away tomorrow, they would still be a team with uniforms, etc. Mrs. Bell asked about uniforms for band and
chorus. Mr. Pitocco said we don’t fund
those uniforms. They do fundraisers for
their uniforms which are thousands of dollars.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if the students would not be able to stage a drama
production without these funds. Mr.
Pitocco said it would be more difficult and it is an issue of equity. Historically, we have under-funded them and
these requests are for costs they have to put out themselves. Mrs. Schmidt
asked what precipitated this at this time.
Mr. Pitocco said it that over time it’s been creeping up and this is the
last step advisors are in the third year of the process of getting that
adjusted.
Mrs. Lionetti asked with regard to
Object 440, if the auditorium manager is dealing with the lighting and the
sound or are we hiring someone else to come in along with paying the auditorium
manager. Dr. Vautour said the auditorium
manager will do lighting and sound for routine activities related to the
school. When you get into more
specialized lighting and sound requirements like a drama production, outside
assistance is brought in. Mrs. Lionetti
said so the auditorium manager doesn’t do those evening productions. Mr. Pitocco said he does routine evening
performances. If drama needs someone
from the lighting group to help out, they are there. He’ll coordinate for the needs of drama or other
productions. As Dr. Vautour said, the
level of sophistication in terms of lighting and sound when you get into these
productions are far beyond the expertise of an auditorium manager.
With regard to Object 690 accounts,
Mrs. Bell asked about the difference; Stevens is $200 and West Hill is
$543. Mrs. Marino said last year all she
had in the account was the Stepping Up Ceremony and this year what she wanted
to do is recognize the PTO volunteers and the Junior Great Books parents who
are very involved and committed to the program.
She would like to recognize them by providing them with a little
something showing our appreciation. Mrs.
Bell asked if we’re doing that at Stevens.
Mr. Pear said, no. Dr. Vautour
said we can either choose to instruct Mr. Pear to put in a factor so that his
volunteers are recognized, or we can tell Mrs. Marino, this is a nice idea, but
no. Mrs. Bell said this plays into the
West Hill v. Stevens misperception. Mrs.
Boutilier said the Junior Great Books program at West Hill has been in place
for a good number of years and is a solid program involving a lot of students
and parents. The Junior Great Books at
Stevens is only in its second year and has not reached that same level. Mrs. Lionetti said that she volunteered for
years for the Junior Great Books program and it is a volunteer position and
those who participate in the program really love doing it, are very dedicated,
and do a great job. It’s her philosophy that when she volunteers to do
something, she does it without the expectation of getting paid. Mrs. Marino said it would just be a token of
appreciation. Dr. Vautour said his
recommendation would be to increase the Stevens amount. Mr. Watson said he’d be glad to recognize a
bunch of people, also.
Dr. Vautour said Page 24c summarizes
Co-Curricular activities at
Dr. Vautour stated the matter should be
referred to Mrs. Boutilier for curriculum review with administrators and staff
to periodically review the field trips to insure that field trips to different
locations achieve the same objective.
Mrs. Boutilier said we can look into account sections, do a review of
field trips and get a summation of those field trips, but if you look over the
course of the child’s lifespan in elementary school, they cover all curricular
areas and that’s what we look for. So
much work on the teacher’s part goes into putting together a field trip, we try
and let them choose the location as long as it’s interesting and related to
curriculum. We found that we get more
out of the teachers if they have some choice in it.
Instructional
Program No. 25 – Athletics
Dr. Vautour stated the total increase
is $7,260. Expenses include items such
as director certification courses, coach certifications, and the uniform
replacement cycle.
Mrs. Vargas asked about Object 730, gym
backboards and gym rims and if we don’t notify Mr. Cooke about such
things. Mr. Pitocco said it’s part of
the program and part of what we do, so we put it in as a request. Mrs. Vargas asked about approaching the
Booster Club. Dr. Vautour said if you
were to cut the rims, we might turn to the Booster Club to see if they would be
willing to purchase these, but there is a fine line between program
responsibilities and enhancements. They
are in poor condition and are used as part of what we do everyday. Mr. Turansky explained that these items are
utilized by gym classes and are not just athletics.
Mr. Arico asked about Big Y points and
what equipment, if any, has the program provided. Mr. Pitocco explained he receives
a point count every month informing him of the number of points
accumulated. He said at the end of the
year, he goes online and shops with those points. They offer everything from
equipment to resource materials, computers, basketballs, etc. He focuses on the 12 or 13 core academic
areas for the most part looking at where is the most need. For example two
years ago they chose equipment for the physical education department, one year
they picked-up an LCD projector, another year, a TV monitor.
Mr. Carberry asked with regard to
Object 730, how old the backboards and rims are. Mr. Pitocco would have to check on that.
Mrs. Vargas asked about Object 730,
football practice pants and aren’t they part of the uniforms. Mr. Pitocco said, no, it’s separate and that
the practice pants are six or seven years old and pretty-much worn out. Mrs. Vargas asked if practice pants can be
moved to football and made part of the replacement cycle. Mrs. Schmidt asked if they are going with the
uniform replacement cycle. Mr. Pitocco
said not necessarily and that he felt the uniform replacement cycle should be
kept discrete.
It was explained that the practice
pants are not the game pants. Mrs.
Vargas asked Mr. Pitocco if he wanted to put them on the replacement cycle so
he will get them every five years and there is planning for them rather than
having them come up whenever. Mrs.
Schmidt said she agreed with the theory, but cautioned that other sports and
activities get uniforms and things that go with them and feels it would be
better to address them on an “as needed” basis outside the uniform prices. Mr. Carberry agreed.
Mrs. Vargas asked if practice pants is
something we’re going to need every five or six years and the school is
responsible for paying for them, then why aren’t we keeping track rather than
having them come up on an as-needed basis.
Mrs. Schmidt pointed out that no other team has practice uniforms. Mrs. Vargas said there is an inequity
there. Mr. Pitocco said it’s the nature
of the sport; practice pants are needed, players practice everyday and cannot
practice in just any pants. He also said
the football pants without practice pants, wouldn’t last.
Mr. McMonigle asked regarding Object
611, what are the fall, winter, and spring training. Mr. Pitocco said he would have to check but
he believes it refers to the number of coaches that have to go through
training.
Mr. McMonigle said regarding Object
690, the boys soccer uniforms, he thought they just replaced them. Dr. Vautour said it’s being addressed
establishing the cycle as being in control of the operation and uniforms
purchased by individuals out-of-cycle were not ours. Mr. McMonigle said he thought the
out-of-cycle uniforms came the year after we had bought some. Mr. Pitocco said he would check on this.
Instructional
Program No. 26 – Summer School
Dr. Vautour stated there is an increase
of $8,904 which is largely a function of salaries. We have a target population of 160 students
in summer school with a design that says class size should not exceed 8. Mr. McMonigle asked about the increase from
last year. Mrs. Boutilier explained last
year they changed the summer school program.
Instead of running two, 2-week sessions, because they felt it wasn’t
enough time to get the desired growth, they program was changed to one, 3-week
session and fully expected enrollments to fall off and the opposite happened,
enrollments increased. We budgeted for
12 teachers last year and had to add. So
this is reflective of the numbers we were able to attain this year and hope
they are reflective of next year. Mrs.
Vargas asked how many teachers they had last year. Mrs. Boutilier said seventeen and that’s why
they budgeted for seventeen this year. Mrs. Bell asked how many students
attended last summer. Mrs. Boutilier
said 149 or so, it averages about 145 to 160.
Mrs. Boutilier explained that class sizes may have ranged a little but
they feel very strongly that the individual attention is what will make the
difference. Mrs. Schmidt asked if the
145 kids are ours or are they taken in from other towns. Dr. Vautour said they are ours. He explained that a few years ago, we took
students from other towns when we received a $25,000 grant. When they stopped the grant we no longer had
the resources to take in those kids.
Mr. Arico asked what grade levels and
what are the primary courses. Mrs. Boutilier
said reading and math and it’s Grades 1 through 5 students who are identified
by their classroom teachers, invited, and encouraged, but participation is not
mandatory so we don’t always get all the students we think should be there.
Instructional
Program No. 27 – Guidance
Dr. Vautour stated there is no change
in the 6 FTEs, total increase is $22,974, $22,204 is salaries, and $770
non-salaries. There is a decrease in
Object 321 at the middle school because they run their career fair every other
year.
Mr. Arico asked with regard to Object
611 what is being consumed. Mr. Watson explained that the middle school has a
new guidance counselor and the department is reviewing support materials and
finding many are outdated, especially ones depicting people in the
workforce. He said the topics guidance
deals with also change as time goes on. The
department is trying to build up the library and support materials to make it a
little more up-to-date.
Instructional
Program No. 28 – Health Services
Dr. Vautour stated this program covers
school nurses. There is no change in the
5 FTEs, the total increase is $9,454; salaries is, $6,875, non-salary is
$2,579. Object 330, in the amount of
$1,550 for defibrillator retraining is a periodic requirement and the fee for
medical advisors is up by $400. Mrs.
Bell asked if we have defibrillators at all buildings. Dr. Levy said we do not have them at the
elementary schools. Mrs. Bell asked if
it wasn’t our plan to put one in every school.
Dr. Vautour said he would begin conversations with Parks &
Recreation on this item.
Instructional
Program No. 29 – Other
Dr. Vautour stated this program
reflects a total increase of $27,390. There are requests at
Regarding Page 29b, the middle school,
Mrs. Schmidt asked about the CREC Portal.
Mrs. Boutilier said it is a web-based program in all the schools that
teachers can use to communicate with students or parents. It is also the major curriculum research for
teachers where they can download lesson plans and other resources. It’s per
pupil cost is $1.15 or $1.25.
We bought into it three or fours ago and it’s available for our staff to
use. Mrs.Schmidt asked if there are teachers
communicating back and forth with students.
Mrs. Boutilier explained that use has not been mandated but she knows
there are a couple of teachers who use it nightly for homework assignments,
etc.
Regarding Page 29e,
Regarding Page 29f, Objects 111 and
112, Mrs. Vargas asked about unsettled contracts and who falls into this
category. Mr. Turansky explained that
all union contracts are settled and raises are reflected in the budget. This item is for all non-bargaining positions
such as superintendent and assistant superintendent (under 111) and myself
(under 112).
Mrs. Bell asked how many regular
part-time paraprofessionals we have. Dr.
Vautour said that will require some research and we will get that.
Regarding Page 29f, Object 111, Dr.
Vautour stated degree changes has been increased by $10,000 because we are hiring
younger staff who are working their way through degree changes - from bachelors
to masters and 6th year.
Regarding Page 29f, Object 561, Mr.
Carberry asked about the increase. Dr.
Vautour said it’s a function of moving from supporting 19 of the 24 GHAMAS
students to supporting 21 of the 24.
Next year, we will be responsible for two more of those kids and the
following year, we take responsibility for all 24. Mr. Turansky said plus we are going up from
one Vo-Ag student to two. Dr. Vautour
reminded the Board that the cost for GHAMAS and the School for the Performing
Arts while being $119,000 we only requested $16,000 because $103,000 comes in
from Choice.
Mr. McMonigle asked how many years we
have left on the early retirement. Mr.
Turansky said he thinks it is two years after this.
Mrs. Vargas asked whether the
substitute teachers at $200,000 includes full-time subs and the increases that
were just made. Mr. Turansky said,
yes. Mrs. Vargas asked if this is going
to be enough. Mr. Turansky said mostly
likely not we have never budgeted the full amount for subs. There is a slight increase in for this year
but not very much.
Mr. McMonigle asked if the increase had
the desired affect in attracting substitutes.
Mr. Turansky said it too early to tell and they are advertising in
newspaper and on the website. Mr. Pitocco
said it’s starting and Mr. Watson, Mr. Pear and Mrs. Marino said, yes.
Instructional
Program No. 31 – Employee Benefits
Dr. Vautour stated that employee
benefits are increasing by $395,982. The
budget has a factor of an 11% increase.
Mr. Lindberg has put out the RFQ to see if we can get some competitive
pressure to bring the rates down. We are
hoping in the first week of February he can give us some information about
preliminary responses. Depending upon
the results of the RFQ, we might be approaching the teacher bargaining unit and
telling them that this year we are going to change benefits while we insure that
the coverage we provide under the new carrier will be equal to or better than
the current.
Mr. Arico asked if the increase
reflects the 9.45% new positions. Dr.
Vautour said, no. Benefits for the 9.45 positions are reflected in the salary.
Instructional
Program No. 32 – Fiscal Services
Dr. Vautour stated there are no changes
in the 2.45 FTEs, and the increase is $5,076, salaries is $2,931, and
non-salaries is $2,145. They have put in
a factor of $1,800 as an increase in the cost of payroll services and anticipated
postage increase of $320.
Instructional
Program No. 35 – Transportation
Dr. Vautour stated that transportation
costs are up $18,700, calculated using a 2% increase over the current costs and
fuel surcharge estimated at $15,600. Dr.
Vautour explained that Page 35a is a summary of what we’re getting. Mr. McMonigle asked with regard to the 1.5
busses, how we get one-half a bus. Mr.
Turansky said one bus is shared with the Trinity Learning Corridor and transportation
for the Pathways program. Mr. Turansky
explained that costs are split between special ed and magnet programs.
Mrs. Schmidt questioned whether a bus
will be used on
Instructional
Program No. 36 – Computers
Dr. Vautour stated there is a request
for an additional 1.0 FTE, the keyboarding teacher, which brings the department
to a total of 4.0 FTEs. Our increase is
$180,002; $57,100 is associated with the keyboarding teacher position,
non-salary increase is $122,902, of that, $100,000 is for two additional
technology leases that were proposed.
Additionally, there is $14,000 for the keyboarding class associated with
the teacher and that’s for the 30 DANAs which are a small version of a
keyboarding computer plus the cart. So
your computer account basically is the keyboarding position and related
equipment and the two leases.
Mrs. Bell asked where is that going to
fit into the curriculum. Mrs. Boutilier
said it will fit in as part of the wheel where they are doing silent reading or
study strategies program so they won’t be loosing instruction in any other
area. The hope is to do a concentrated
course in 6th grade, with continued support from the instructor
through 7th and 8th grades to meet the goal of
technological literacy by 8th grade.
Mrs. Bell said she is just trying to reconcile why we seem to be adding
more and more and basic literacy skills are a problem.
Mrs. Vargas asked about $1,300 for
mileage. Mrs. Boutilier said it is for
three people who haven’t requested reimbursement in the past, but we have to
recognize that they are traveling between buildings.
Mr. McMonigle asked about technology
and always using $50,000 increments and could we make a recommendation for
$70,000 for example. Mr. Turansky said
the maximum on these purchases is $150,000.
The intent was to have one lease done each year of a three year cycle so
we’d always carry three leases at a time except for the initial take on. As we go forward and one lease expires, we’d
add on another lease. Because of budget constraints we haven’t been able to do
that. Mr. McMonigle asked if there is a
statutory limit of $150,000 on the amount of leases. Mr. Turansky said he believes it’s in the
charter.
Instructional
Program No. 37 – Student Support
Dr. Vautour said there are no changes
in the .45 coordinator and the $25,000 mini-grant program. Rocky Hill does not do a formal pull-out
program for gifted education. Rather we
insert different activities into our curriculum and we’ve utilized this program
as the mechanism. Additionally, there
are two programs that run through this one, one is the mentoring program which
is expanding dramatically from middle school up into the high school, and this
individual also coordinates the entire senior citizen tax rebate program. Mrs. Vargas asked if the salary
fluctuates. Dr. Vautour said there were
some fluctuations in the work schedule of the individual last year. Mrs. Boutilier explained there were health
issues and they do not expect the fluctuation to continue.
Instructional
Program No. 41 – Student Assessment
Dr. Vautour said this account contains
the part-time data entry clerk that’s been requested. He referred to a tab section showing an
increase in data entry requirements school administration is facing.
This concluded Dr. Vautour’s
presentation of the proposed budget. He
said it’s time for the administration to listen to the Board regarding where we
go from here.
Mrs. Schmidt asked Board members if
they would propose the budget as presented or do they need to consider making
cuts. Dr. Vautour said the question is
whether the Board agrees this budget can go forward as is. Mrs. Schmidt said we are all pretty much in
agreement that we cannot keep the number we have.
Mrs. Schmidt asked Board members if
they wished to talk about items they feel strongly about and wanted to try to
keep or if they felt the meeting should end for tonight and when they reconvene
on the 31st bring forward proposals for administration to consider.
Mr. Rivard said he is in awe of the
amount of work and dedication Dr. Vautour and his staff put into preparing this
budget. He said the fiduciary responsibility demonstrated overwhelms him and he
doesn’t think there is any item in the budget that wasn’t well thought out and
is probably needed, but we have to deal with reality.
With regard to class size guidelines,
the following discussion took place.
Mr. Geldof asked Board members to address the fundamental issue of class
size guidelines and what could be tolerated.
Dr. Vautour said if the Board chose to go to a 22.3 class size they
could achieve two things that are not possible with the current proposal. They could avoid extending the period of time
students stay at
Mrs. Schmidt said her feeling is that
making space at Stevens to bring one third grade class to the school by going
over the guidelines by roughly .3 in every class (which means two classes would
have a whole kid and two classes will be at guideline), was a little bit fairer
tradeoff because of what those third graders were not going to access being set
aside at Moser School. She thinks the
third graders need to be moved over to Stevens. Dr. Vautour asked Board members
to understand that he has made no recommendations concerning class size
guidelines. Rather he is providing full
disclosure of the impact if the board chooses not to add a third grade class at
Mrs. Bell agreed that there are
extenuating circumstances as to the Moser/Stevens tradeoff and she said she has
a problem with moving a third grade class over to Moser before looking at the
feasibility study and where it’s going to lead us. She did not want to do anything that may not
be in sync with what ultimately is going to happen as an outcome of the
feasibility study. Dr. Vautour said he
understood that, but we are in a position of having to make some short-term
decisions based on enrollments. If we
think ultimately that Moser should not be part of the mix, and if class sizes
increase dramatically an alternative would be adding additional modules as a stopgap
measure.
Mrs. Vargas asked if projected class
size numbers are based on numbers we have now and whether they allow for
movement over the summer. Dr. Vautour
said the numbers are as of December 1 and there’s no factor accommodating for
possible movement over the summer. He
reminded the Board that this past summer when the analysis was done, the
addition of two teachers was required.
Mr. McMonigle asked if there is much change in the August and
December. Dr. Vautour said this past
year there was sufficient change to warrant two teachers. Mr. Geldof asked if there is the potential to
have to add a teacher due to in-migration over the summer that you may not
realize until August. Dr. Vautour said
yes.
Mr. Geldof said it sounds as though
everyone is in agreement that we really shouldn’t extend a third grade class to
Moser. If we find ourselves in a
position because of in-migration over the summer then we may have to bring
another teacher on.
Mr. Geldof asked what effect the third
grade situation has on the FLES program?
Dr. Vautour said the FLES model being proposed would take place in
existing classrooms. Mr. Geldof said
he’s worried about sustaining those positions in the budget and he thinks they
have to leave room for the possibility of in-migration resulting in a change in
class sizes.
Mrs. Schmidt said she thinks the
consideration is going to be do we keep FLES in this budget and what are the
considerations when we look at the new programs being offered in this budget.
Mrs. Bell asked to go back to talking
about Moser and how everyone feels about the class size guidelines. Mrs. Schmidt said she offered her view that
the situation at Moser is extraordinary.
Mrs. Bell asked if anyone felt differently. Mr. Geldof said he wouldn’t want to see it
become a permanent situation, but if it gets us over the hump for one year,
according to the numbers Dr. Vautour presented, he would support that for the
short term only.
Mrs. Bell asked if Board members are
saying they are not altering their philosophy in terms of guidelines, they are
making a special arrangement for extenuating circumstances in this one
case. Members agreed.
With regard to FLES and the Strings
programs, the following discussion took place. Mrs. Schmidt asked if FLES should be
discussed. Mr. McMonigle asked if the
FLES and Strings programs are all or nothing, or could they be phased in. Dr. Vautour said you can always phase
in. You could choose to start the FLES
program in 4th or 5th rather than 3rd. In terms of the strings program, if you went
to a half teacher rather than a full teacher, we would have to analyze and
determine where to start strings instruction.
Mrs. Vargas asked if the total cost at
the elementary level for FLES is $119,980 and to add the 6th grade
is $22,140. She would look at it in the
reverse and start it at 6th grade so that all the kids in the middle
school are complete with foreign language and maybe start next year or
something at the elementary level. She would rather complete the middle school
and phase it in at the elementary level.
Mr. Carberry said he agreed.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if the strings
program can be phased in. Mrs. Bell
asked if it could be an enrichment program providing instruction after school
so we can see what the interest is. Dr.
Vautour asked if a staff member would be running it or it would be a pay for
play. Mrs. Bell said for example the
piano lessons for the schools, if you choose to take the lesson parents pay for
the child, but it is a lot easier for parents to participate in that at the high
school where students stay after school as opposed to finding a place. Can we help facilitate the enrichment
activities at the school as a way of moving towards strings. Dr. Vautour said that is a conversation he
would have with staff. Mr. Geldof said
you can move towards it if you implemented a lower grade level structured
program. Mrs. Schmidt said the problem
is staffing. Mr. Geldof said you could
start with .2 teacher in third and fourth grade and move it along on a yearly
basis rather than going with a whole teacher now. Mrs. Schmidt asked if there would be a teacher
that would teach part time.
Mr. Geldof asked if we are in agreement
that FLES and strings are going to be implemented to some extent in the budget
proposal. Mr. Arico said yes. Mrs. Bell said on small scale. Mrs. Schmidt said phase it in.
With regard to the Strategic Literacy
program, the following discussion took place.
Mrs. Bell asked do we feel pretty strongly that this should be
offered. The bar has been raised as far
as comprehension. With her children over
an eight year span she has seen the expectation change from “why did Sally do
something” to “what did Sally do, and why did she do it and use supporting
evidence in your answer.” She hates the
idea of loosing kids and if we send them to high school without good literacy
skills, they will never be a success.
Mrs. Bell also talked about the moral and ethical obligation to support
all students and not just the “high flyers.”
Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Carberry, and Mr. Arico agreed. Mr. Geldof said he thinks this is a very good
program and would support it and that Mr. Watson and Mrs. Marino made a very
strong case for it at the last meeting.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if it has to be a
full-time teaching position and is there any possibility of a half-time teacher
and a trained paraprofessional. Dr. Vautour
said what she was describing is the existing TLC model where reading teachers
are overseeing paras who are working with the kids. Mr. Rivard said that when we discuss new
programs this is an essential one and he can support it. He feels that strategic literacy is the basis
for future education and feels a need to use professionals where you have found
something that has to be rectified.
Mr. Arico asked how long these students
will receive instruction. Mr. Watson
said 42 minutes, one full period, per day.
Mr. McMonigle said it’s his opinion
that if we were to give kids only one skill it has to be reading.
Mr. Watson said today he did two
informal observations in 7th and 8th grade social studies
and it was interesting how much reading and writing skills were part of both of
those lessons. The handouts and
activities proposed were very much reading-based, summarizing, finding the main
idea, supporting details through various facts, analyzing historical documents,
and what was meant by this or that. So,
reading is very much widespread and integrated in everything the kids do.
Mr. Arico asked what percent of
students are seen as being weak and in need help in comparison to the total
number of students. Mr. Watson said we
are identifying approximately 15 to 20 kids per 7th and per 8th
grade and we have about 200 kids per grade, so we’re looking at from 7%-10% of
the kids. Mr. Rivard asked if any of
these children end up in special education.
Mr. Pear said some may, especially at the primary level. Mr. Watson said students at the middle school
who have been identified are not special ed students and special ed students
would not be part of this program. Dr.
Vautour explained that one problem with the special education statute is if you
don’t fit the criteria, you can’t get the service. So, you can still be failing, and if we don’t
have an alternative to the special education program, then the kid does fail
and he drops out. For all kids we lose,
it has a negative impact on the community from an earnings standpoint.
With regard to the keyboarding program
the following discussion took place.
Mr. Geldof asked if the Board is willing to support the keyboarding and
computer skills program.
Mr. Arico asked if we do not approve
this program what impact would that have on the 730 account. Dr. Vautour said if you don’t approve the
keyboarding teacher, the impact is roughly $14,000 and equipment is not
required. Mrs. Schmidt asked if there is
a legal or statutory requirement to provide this at this point. Mrs. Boutilier said out of NCLB came a
technology plan requirement from the state.
One of the requirements of that plan is that we will find a way to
insure that all our students have technological literacy by 8th
grade. Right now, we cannot be sure that
happens. Mr. Carberry stated that
technological literacy is the most crucial component to being successful in the
workforce especially with new positions and feels this program would be a good
step.
Mrs. Schmidt asked if we can move some
of it from high school to 8th grade.
Mrs. Boutilier said the original recommendation of the communications
committee was to put in a program at the middle school then revise the
curriculum in the high school to integrate some of the other technological
skills that we never even touch - we do very little with any of the other
peripherals. Feedback from students when
we met with them a few years ago was we didn’t get a chance to learn anything
and they learned it on their own. Mr.
Rivard asked at what grade level do students start report and essay writing on
the computer. Mrs. Schmidt said in the
elementary school. Mr. Rivard said so
when we are talking about children learning on their own, from my personal
experience having to relearn after learning the wrong way was terrible. So, if we give them essay and report writing
starting in the elementary school, keyboarding is a logical choice.
Mrs. Schmidt asked about the two
courses. Mrs. Hayward explained that
one-half year is computer essentials and the full year is keyboarding. Mrs. Schmidt asked if any of those courses is
a requirement. Mr. Pitocco said computer
essentials is essential.
Mrs. Bell asked if this is part of the
wheel. Mr. Pitocco said five weeks. Mrs. Bell said as part of the wheel in 6th
grade what are we really accomplishing in five weeks. Mrs. Schmidt said she thought it was a whole
year. Mrs. Bell said we are not talking
about a whole lot here. She said that
the cost vs. the benefit of doing it she wasn’t sure would be worth it; 5 weeks
for $17,000. Dr. Vautour said we may
need to take the question of keyboarding and force it back for review with the
idea of being that we approach the state requirement the way other aspects of
NCLB have been approached; that is, the 2006 implementation is moved back a
year or so while doing a detailed review of the business department at the high
school coupled with keyboarding instruction in the middle school and what the
implications might be. There could be
some implications relative to computer essentials that we currently
require. He is willing to take the risk
to stay the same guidelines and back off for one year.
Mrs. Schmidt reminded everyone that
these are just discussions.
Mrs. Bell said Mrs. Vargas makes a good
point with regard to Stevens when they go into the library for computers, what
are they learning. Mrs. Boutilier said
that is one period, 35 to 40 minutes, once a week in which they learn an
introduction to computers, how to save documents, etc. Any of our research says that if you wish to build
keyboarding skills, which means correct hand placement using all the fingers
requires a period of time on a regular basis.
Once a week even if you spent the whole time doing keyboarding it’s not
going to happen. Mrs. Bell said that’s
one little part of the wheel vs. the rest of their lives when they‘re home and
get online to do their work. Are we
really going to accomplish what you want to in a small part of the wheel.
Mr. Carberry suggested what they do learn in five weeks can be
applied when they go home. Mrs. Vargas
asked how that would be evaluated. Mr.
Carberry asked wouldn’t they be evaluated in the keyboarding class in the high
school. Mrs. Bell said, in a perfect
world, it’s a great thing to have, but there’s a lot of stuff on our list.
Mr. Geldof said he felt the Board might
have to rethink this; maybe put it on hold for a year. Students should be taking that elective in
the high school and suggested this would be a good topic for Mrs. Hayward to
familiarize them with at a meeting they have scheduled for next week.
Dr. Vautour said he and Mrs. Boutilier
need to have a conversation between now and the next meeting to see if there is
something that can be fashioned that would make sense to transition over. Mr. Carberry’s theory is that if kids have
proactive training they will become more accustomed so they will automatically
use it. The question is will the proactive
training overcome the length of time where they are going to do it
themselves. Dr. Vautour said he’s spoken
with many people who say finger placement is great, but they’re fast enough
using the one finger method. He
suggested maybe what we conceptualize is that we give you training and each
year there will be a periodic assignment that you must do in a computer lab
where we monitor to see if you are using correct finger placement or not. That would be the incentive to make sure
students apply the skills.
Mrs. Boutilier explained this is not
just keyboarding skills, but the whole scope of technology skills in software
programs. She stated four or five former
students came in and met with the technology committee and said no one prepared
them for what it is like being in college where you have your laptop hooked-up
to the network and have to submit all your papers online. No where do we provide that for them in a
systematic way. The last thing they said
was the most valuable thing we could have taught them was keyboarding. Mrs. Schmidt asked if this can’t be tied to
the regular curriculum in the high school.
Just taking little steps to prepare students like requiring them to do a
paper and submit it online rather than in class. Mrs. Boutilier said that was part of the
follow-up discussions and there was also a part about assuming we get a solid
program in the middle school then we look at what we offer in the high school
and how we increase the exposure. Mrs.
Schmidt asked don’t we have it at the high school. Mr. Pitocco said they are introductory
courses.
With regard to the Family and Consumer
Science course in the high school, the following discussion took place. Mrs. Schmidt is not ready to start picking
apart individual courses. Mr. Geldof
said the course is tied to a .2 FTE and feels as a Board this is exactly where
we should be going. We would be
providing enhancement to a portion of the student population who would get an
opportunity to pick-up an honors course and that’s a direction we as a Board
should promote. We’re enhancing our
curriculum by adopting that course.
Mrs. Schmidt asked how many students you
hope to attract. Mrs. Boutilier said 20
students and the course meets requirements for either education majors, nursing
majors, or family and consumer science majors at UCONN. Mr. Pitocco said in addition to those
reasons, it provides students looking for electives the opportunity to pick-up
an honors level area elective. Mrs.
Schmidt asked if this is a full- year course. Mr. Pitocco said yes.
Dr. Vautour stated if the Board feels
they can’t sustain the increase in the budget of $2 million the question
becomes what do you think you can sustain.
If he remembered the process correctly, last year we were given the
sense of a dollar amount and we came back and tried to give a picture that
makes sense from the administrative standpoint that gets close to what you
think you want in terms of submitting a budget.
You may not be ready to make that set of statements this evening. You might need to do some internal thinking. So, do you have in mind things that you
simply can’t live with or do you have in mind the sense of a dollar amount we
are not going to go much beyond.
Dr. Vautour said you have told me the
following:
(1) Due to
extenuating circumstances you will deviate from class size guidelines.
(2) You have an
interest in FLES and Strings but don’t believe the implementation schedule as
proposed is going to make it, so administration is going to come back with a
revised process.
(3) Strategic
literacy/reading component is high on your list.
(4) Keyboarding is
something that’s all over the place right now and I have to sit down with Laura
and other people and look at what can we do and what’s our timeline.
Dr. Vautour asked if the Board had
other reflections to give the administration this evening.
Mr. Geldof wanted to reach consensus on
family and consumer science, which he thinks is a winner for the system. Mrs. Schmidt said when you view it that way
there is nothing in the budget we’d want to cut. She would like to turn this back to the
administrators and ask for guidance. They
know the cadre of what you have to offer in each school and we don’t want to
fall backwards. If there are some steps
we can take to move forward.
Dr. Vautour suggested the Board may
need to reach consensus as to the question of whether to put forth a budget
that constitutes some level of growth, i.e., new programs, or put forth a
budget that constitutes bare bones minimums, or someplace in between. Mr. McMonigle said this group’s job is to
produce a budget that moves the district forward. The Board’s job is not maintenance. Members agreed.
Dr. Vautour said then the question
becomes one of what magnitude of growth are you suggesting to the
administration you can approve. Mr.
McMonigle said when he looks at all the issues, all the courses and programs look
good but recognizing that we can’t have them all, he’d need a sense from the
administration as to a hierarchy - if they picked one, two, or three things,
what are they. We’ll trust your judgment
on those.
Mrs. Bell explained that it is their
responsibility to understand the needs of this budget and what we think should
go forward in light of the fact that we may not get everything we request. Dr. Vautour said do you want me to work with
administrators and chunk out some pictures.
He could chunk out the budget to absurdity or he could carry it to a
point where administrators would say we would hope we don’t go below this
because it’s starting to push us away from any sort of growth and that’s
pushing us further down.
Mr. Geldof agrees with Mr. McMonigle
this is not a maintenance budget, we have to have some improvement and move
forward somewhere, he’d like to support everything but we know we can’t.
Dr. Vautour said what we will do is say
to you look if we assume we can get $1.8 million, what’s the $200,000 you can
throw out. The assume all we can get is
$1.7 million, or whatever, there is a number at which I think the
administrators will come back and say we don’t want you to give the council a
budget that drops below this level because we’ll be in trouble. And you have signaled me that you are not
looking for maintenance you want some movement forward. Mrs. Bell said we need to know what that
maintenance number is.
Dr. Vautour will work with
administrators to provide the Board with a budget that constitutes a level of
reasonable goals that chunk out in $200,000 - $250,000 blocks indicating what
would end up going first. Ultimately the
Board will have to provide him and administrators with a number they feel they
can’t go beyond. We will provide you
with a sense of if you approach the $1.8 million then this is what we would put
on the block. Leave this in and take
this out.
Mrs. Bell asked if they can expect to
get that at the next meeting or before.
Dr. Vautour said he would try to get it beforehand but no later than
mid-day of the 31st.
MOTION by Mrs. Schmidt, seconded by Mr. Arico, to adjourn
the budget workshop at 9:00 p.m.
FAVOR: ALL
MOTION
CARRIED
Respectfully submitted,
Juanda J. Simons
Recording Secretary
Accepted by: ________________________