|
|
|
|
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools Board of Directors and Membership Meeting March 10, 2009 Minutes
1. Welcome and Introductions Dr. Marshall reminded all in attendance to sign in at the back of the room and pick up the packet and information from the presenters.
The meeting was called to order at 10:14 am
2. Approve Minutes of February 10,2009, 2008 A Motion was made to approve minutes of February 10th by Bruce Kaiser, 2nd Mike Zapantis. It was so voted. 3. School District Central Office Staffing Survey Executive Director Stephen Hemman announced that the DESE, specifically Associate Commissioner Jeff Wulfson, would like MARS to conduct a school district central office staffing survey. DESE will contract with MARS to conduct survey for under $5,000.The purpose of the survey is to study the relationship between a school district’s size and its: (a) administrative capacity; (b) administrative costs; and (c) administrative salary levels. The study will focus on small to medium size operating districts (under 6,000 students). Right now so many organizations have data is different places.
4. Presentation by George Ladd Guest speaker, George Ladd presented and introduced the Data Analysis and Strategic Planning Project DASPP and gave an overview of the types of projects this organization can assist school districts with. The DASPP has worked with 18-20 regional school districts in Commonwealth.
According to Mr. Ladd, MCAS data can be misunderstood. Working Boston College, a group of teachers, department heads and doctoral students got together and called the group DASPP to analyze student data. This was prior to Test Wiz software being developed. DASPP works with 40 districts and schools each year. DASPP realizes that there are reduced resources and more demands placed on school and districts. The goal is to build sustainable capacity and focus around that need. DASPP can assist districts with district planning, school council planning, and strategic planning – developing the core values and mission statements in strategic plans – how is it translated in the next 3-4 years in an action plan and in coordination with district wide priorities? How do you share expectations, ownerships, and knowledge?
Teachers and administrators get a feeling things are externally controlled rather than internally controlled. To alleviate this, data analysis is performed by “drilling down into data” and taking a look at individual student performance and target issues going forward based on individuals. DASPP recently worked on data analysis looking at individual teachers and performance of the students they have had. Districts need to deal with issues of teachers not doing what they need to do. According to Mr. Ladd, it takes 2 years for students to recover from 1 year in an underperforming classroom. The study looks at tests given throughout the year and the reading level of the tests. Who writes the tests?
Assessment programs must be looked at for the reading level of the assessment program. DASP has developed a software program to identify the reading level of the test or assessment tool. If there is open response questions and students are struggling how have “you” targeted those particular skills during the year so students are prepared for the test? Concepts should be reinforced on a regular basis and not only learned, tested and forgotten. Targeted school improvement plan – work smarter to target specific areas of subject and ways to improve – Math, ELA, and test taking.
With next year’s funding outlook, DASPP will look at bringing school districts together to work together on a common need. There is a workshop scheduled for March 23rd to explore software applications dealing with formative assessments and software used. There are workshops scheduled in Brockton, Lexington and Franklin. In a March 25th session, school improvement teams will be explored. Another workshop dealing with developing SIPs will be scheduled in April.
Inquiries from the audience including does DASPP has experience in dealing with dropout prevention strategies. DASPP looks at performance over time, not year of dropout – doesn’t like focusing on sub-groups.
Although DASPP would like to work with districts collaboratively, districts may also work with DASPP individually. Grants are available and will pay up to 60% of costs to work with districts.
5. FY2010 Update by David Tobin 6.Federal Stimulus Budget update The second guest speaker was Dave Tobin. His opening line, “We have a tough job ahead of us!” Some of the most difficult challenges are to come. Mr. Tobin provided the members with a Chapter 70 Trends handout as released in House 1. This is the beginning of the process. The budget has left Governor’s office with input from Commissioner of Education. It’s on its way to the House and Senate Ways and Means and “is subject change”. At this time, the House & Senate may or may not be on the same path.
Interim Superintendent Ken Rocke of Gill-Montague Regional School District attended a hearing yesterday and summarized the meeting for members. Secretary Reville said the Readiness project is key. The Commissioner testified. There was not a lot of new information given out. The municipal side got the legislators’ ears and they want towns held harmless. The Legislators were in listening mode – some comments were heard – the public said not enough funds are going locally. There was no new information for educational leaders in the state.
Executive Director Hemman stated that all State Representatives have at least one regional school district in their district and they were talking about Chapter 71, Regional Transportation reimbursement. The Executive Director suggested that we all send an email to our Senator or Representative to reinstate Chapter 71 funding with the federal stimulus funding.
There is a lot of speculation and hope that stimulus funding will be the bridge to a recovery. There is talk of a $5b shortfall – absent stimulus funding.
Looking at state-wide enrollment, MA student enrollment had grown until 1994, now there is a downturn; however the FY10 reduction is less than was expected. Enrollment decreased by 3,212 state-wide.
Looking at education funding, the FY93 Foundation Budget was $4.5b. For FY10 it is $9.2b. The Foundation Budget was adjusted for inflation and also by the number of students. The Foundation Budget will not be changed as it goes through the system. This one is capped by legislation at 4.5% inflation when the actual inflation indicator is 6.75% (3rd qtr). Had the inflation rate not been capped, the Foundation Budget would have been $9.4b rather than $9.2b.
Mr. Tobin provided members with a memorandum he prepared for Tom Scott, MASS Executive Director. Members should refer to this document for very important information pertaining to Target Contributions.
Municipal Revenue Growth, an important component of the education funding formula went up by 1.8%, the smallest increase in 15 years.
There has been a one-time adjustment in the FY10 Minimum Local Contribution calculation. Can these communities afford this? Yes, because they already have. They appropriated more than this in FY08. No town is mandated to contribute more than 95% of FY08. The one-time adjustment causes big changes among the members of a regional school district. Why did state do this one year adjustment now – “they wanted to do it before but the mechanics wouldn’t work.”
2/3 of communities are above target; 1/3 of communities are below target. Those above were being adjusted down, and they are 2 years away from bringing those communities down – BUT the formula wasn’t making those communities that are below target pay more. With 2 years to go with plan, those communities below target must be increased so that those communities above target could be cut. The State considers the adjustment to communities below target to be “glacial”. However, with Chapter 70 level funded – they could make the change without communities losing Chapter 70 funding if the town can pay more. This “correction” requires communities that have willingly paid more than MLC to pay more.
Federal stimulus funding is said to be $7-9m to be distributed over a 2 year period. There are designated funds for Title I and Special Education, which may help with Special Education cost, pre-k costs, etc.
The funding may be used to help relieve cuts that were in place because formula didn’t work the way in which it was intended. It may be used add back the $200m that is lost in Foundation Budget. That would need to be in the form of state aid because MLC is already set. Mr. Tobin doesn’t believe that the inflation rate would be increased to 6.75% at this point in the process. Funding may be used to relieve those that are below there target. More aid may go to those communities because their MLC is set and that will affect Foundation Budget in total. At the present time, the increase in Required Net School Spending is $174m – all funded by increases in MLC.
There is a major concern for regions if there is a change in MLC after budget process has begun. The one-time adjustment is a correction in the movement of equity Although Chapter 70 has been “held harmless” – “hold harmless” is not equitable. Mr. Tobin’s is still unsure if Chapter 70 will end up level funded for FY10. The federal stimulus funding has not targeted Chapter 71 deficits – perhaps the state will; however, it is unlikely that Chapter 71 will see any stimulus funding.
Is it too early to contemplate how to use federal stimulus funding in budget? 82% of the funding is targeted for education – but since Chapter 70 was held harmless, there is discussion on how it can be used if it is gone in 2 years. The Legislature really doesn’t have many ideas yet. Note: districts can only use ½ of IDEA stimulus funding for current use – and ½ as a new program enhancement
6. Presentation on Franklin County Studies on regionalization a. Don Kennedy from DESDEC b. Kevin Courtney The next speakers were Kevin Courtney, retired Superintendent from Franklin County and Don Kennedy and Art Bettencourt or NESDEC regarding the ongoing study on regionalization of Franklin County schools. The Franklin County project came about a couple years ago, in face of declining enrollment and unlikely increases in state aid. Funding was received to do study of Franklin County and how services were organized and if there was a better way to oversee the administration and education of the region. The study committee consisted of School committee, superintendents, Greenfield Community College president volunteered as chair. For $50k, the study committee hired public management associates (Rich LaBrie) and looked at services in Franklin County for about 1 year to see how services can be used in collaboration. NESDEC was hired to look at governance issues. The consultants came back with 75 page report that is available, that identified areas that Franklin County could better deliver services to 8,000 kids over 700 sq miles in a topographically challenged area. Services were identified, towns joined a collaborative, and a joint transportation bid was advertised. It was learned that you can do better together than alone. Can these recommendations be implemented? Phase I – work with Superintendents. They can talk with their business managers and sped directors, IT staff, etc. Nothing in report will save schools in Franklin County. Phase II – governance. The study looked at the issue of School Choice and economic factors. There was local school committee push back related to local autonomy.
Art Bettencourt of NESDEC is a former Superintendent. NESDEC’s work includes Superintendent searches, specialized studies for districts, demographic & enrollment studies, district regionalization or consolidation. The organization has worked in a number of different states. A PowerPoint presentation and handout was made available to members.
Bruce Kaiser reported on the Insurance Standing Committee and presented minutes to the March 5th meeting. More information re: the GIC option will be presented at a future MARS meeting.
The meeting ended at 12:32. The reminder of the agenda will be completed at the beginning of the next Board meeting.
7. Meetings: a. Board of Education b. Joe Giannino 8. Standing Committees a. Laws and Regulations – Reza Namin 1. Haddad Proposed legislation 2. DESE proposed regulation change on Budget b. Insurances—Health and General Insurance—Bruce Kaiser 1. Meeting on March 5, 2009 c. Budget d. Grants e. Professional Development—Barbara Ripa 1. Program for new Superintendents 2. Future programs for MARS f. School Building---MSBA 1. Meeting on March 6, 2009 g. Regionalization 1. Meeting on Feb. 26, 2009 2. MARS’s position on issues
Information: Statuary and Alternative Assessment Data
Next Meeting: April 14 , 2009 10:00 am Assabet Submitted by,
Cheryl Duval, MARS Director And Steve Hemman, Executive Director |
|
Send mail to
webmaster@massassociationregionalschools.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|