Watertown Board of Education
Regular Meeting
Minutes
Meeting Date: August 22, 2005
Meeting Time: 7:30 p.m.
Meeting Place: John Trumbull Primary School Library
Members Present: Ms. Mary Ann Rosa, Board Chairperson
Mr. Victor Vicenzi, Vice Chairperson
Ms. Gina Calabrese, Board member
Ms. Mary Dzioba, Board member
Mr. James Marks, Board member
Ms. Joanne Pannone, Board member
Dr. Joseph Erardi, Jr., Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Philip Pelosi, Assistant Superintendent of Schools
Ms. Amelia Grover, Dir. of Budget and Financial Planning
Ms. Betsy Hackett, Director of Special Services
Mr. Todd LoFrese, Director of Operations/Technology
Absent: Ms. Mary Colangelo, Board Secretary
Ms. Maureen Caine, Board member
Mr. Charles Fenn, Board member
Press: Mr. Tommy Valuckas, Waterbury Republican-American Mr. Jim Taylor, Town Times
Guests: Members of the Maintenance and Custodial crews, Charlie Beliveau, Gil Bouthot, Craig Lamphier, Joe Campbell and Dave Kennedy, Scott Sturges, Hank McGough, Kevin Palmer, Jeff Hughes, Dan Nelson, Andy Kennedy and Lou Sirois.
Other interested citizens: Mr. Thad Hasbrouck, Ms. Marylu Lerz, Mrs. Kathleen Scully and Ms. Laura Meka. Mr. Whitey Greenwood, Mrs. Sandy Greenwood, Mrs. Fran Palmer and Mr. Bob Grady.
A. Convene Regular Meeting - 7:30 PM
Ms. Mary Ann Rosa, Chairman, convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
B. Salute to the Flag
Ms. Rosa led the pledge to the Flag.
Dr. Erardi: Please remain standing to observe a moment of silence for Ms. Rosa’s father, Mr. John Palazzo, who passed away last week.
Ms. Rosa: Thank you.
C. Public Participation
Del LeVasseur, 288 Riverside Street, Oakville
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who do not know me, my name is Del LeVasseur, I have been a Disc Jockey for the past twenty years. For the past two years I have been sponsoring a teen dance twice a month down at St. John’s Church in Watertown. Mainly the kids from the middle school and the high school come down to hang out for a couple of hours, it’s a great place for the kids to go and hang out. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a flyer passed out at the middle school. A lot of parents don’t know what this place is about and I really don’t have any other way to get in touch with them other than advertising in the newspaper and I really don’t want to do that because then I am attracting kids from Waterbury to come to this place, who I really don’t want. I was wondering if that would be possible to have a flyer passed out at the middle school for this purpose.
Ms. Rosa: What you do sounds to be of a great benefit to young people, unfortunately we don’t circulate advertising flyers from any organizations or groups that are not school affiliated. I do not believe we would be able to under our current policy.
Mr. LeVasseur: OK, I have a question about that though. I do know that the Park and Rec. Department sends out flyers two or three times a year during the school breaks, and on those flyers, it promotes the Thomaston Lanes and Rollermagic skating, which is a type of business like I am.
Ms. Rosa: That’s correct but it’s a Park and Rec. sponsored activity and they are one of the arms of the Town so that is the reason that it happens. You may want to try and talk to one of the PTAs at the two schools and see if either of them will lend you support and could promote it for you on their informational brochures.
Mr. LeVasseur: OK, thank you very much for your time.
Ms. Calabrese: MaryAnn, I’m sorry, what about maybe, the libraries, they wouldn’t object.
Ms. Rosa: Yes, maybe the library might allow you to put some flyers there, good idea Gina.
Public Participation closed at 7:34 p.m.
D. Budget Summary
Ms. Rosa: There is a Budget Summary in your packet but, as you know, we will be having a Budget meeting so we can save those questions for Thursday.
E. Committee Reports:
1. Advertising Committee, James Marks, Chair
Mr. Marks: We are still waiting on proposals so we will have a meeting and report back.
2. Athletics and Facilities Committee, Mr. Victor Vicenzi, Chair
Mr. Vicenzi stated that there was no report tonight.
3. Curriculum & Instruction Committee, Gina Calabrese, Chair
Ms. Calabrese: Curriculum and Instruction met on Monday, at 1:30 p.m. at the John Trumbull School Library. The following issues were discussed: first - Ms. Marylu Lerz detailed proposed changes in the scheduling of the Unified Arts rotation at Swift Middle School. This was needed to be done because of Budget cuts, specifically due to the loss of a Technology Education teacher, a Family and Consumer Science teacher and also the reduction of the Library Media Specialist, from full time to .4. The results in changes are detailed in the meeting minutes which are included in each Board member’s packet. The Committee did approve of the changes as presented.
Second - Dr. Pelosi proposed the elimination of the Stanford Achievement Test in Grades 3, 5 and 7 due to the fact that the Connecticut Mastery Test has now been expanded from simply grades 4, 6 and 8 to grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, under the No Child Left Behind legislation. The District will save approximately $25,000 by eliminating the Stanford Achievement Test. The Committee also approved of this change.
Next, Mrs. Donna Wright provided an update of the status of the Art curriculum. She stated that during vertical team meetings, the needs of the department were highlighted and these needs will be reflected in changes to the curriculum.
Mrs. Sally Rinaldi provided an update of the Math curriculum, explaining that every grade level now has a CMT focus and that CAPT activities are embedded on each grade level and also in a November assessment.
Dr. Pelosi spoke about the status of the Music curriculum including changes to its format and issues related to rubrics used to assess student work.
Finally, Mr. Anthony Antonucci spoke about the upcoming Professional Development days planned for August 29th and 30th and also the Professional Development newsletter.
4. Policy and Labor Committee, Mary Colangelo, Chair
Ms. Rosa: Ms. Colangelo can’t be with us this evening. There was a meeting prior to this meeting where we discussed the charges for using various school buildings. There is no recommendation coming forward this evening for a change. We are still looking at it. Mr. LoFrese brought to us a new guideline for Watertown public schools exposure control, a new plan that will be coming to all Board members to review and it will become part of our guidelines in our policy.
5. Cablevision, James Marks
Mr. Marks stated there was no Report tonight.
F. Communications-Secretary
Ms. Rosa: I’m unaware of any communications.
G. Minutes
1. Regular Board of Education Meeting-July 25, 2005
Motion presented by Ms. Pannone seconded by Ms. Calabrese that the Minutes of the Regular Board of Education meeting of July 25, 2005 be approved as presented.
Motion Passed
(5-In favor, 0-Opposed, 1-Abstained)
In Favor: Ms. Rosa, Mr. Vicenzi, Ms. Calabrese, Ms. Dzioba, and
Ms. Pannone
Abstained: Mr. Marks
H. Superintendent's Recommendations and Report
Dr. Erardi: Thank you Ms. Rosa. Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are here for your information. Are there any questions for these items?
Mr. Vicenzi: Under the Resignation item, have those positions been filled?
Dr. Erardi stated there were ongoing interviews for these resignations.
1. Appointments – (Information Only – No Action Required)
a. Ms. Lisa French to the position of One to One Paraprofessional, Category #1, at Heminway Park School starting August 31, 2005 for 6.5 hours paid per day at an hourly rate of $11.09.
b. Mr. Matthew Geary to the position of Assistant Principal at Watertown High School effective August 15, 2005, being hired on Step 1 of the Watertown Administrator’s Association at a contractual salary of $75,000.00.
c. Ms. Amanda Geddis to the position of Biology/Chemistry Teacher at Watertown High School effective for the 2005-2006 school year, being hired on Step 4, with a Bachelor’s Degree and 3 years of experience, at a contractual salary of $38,564.00.
d. Ms. Wendy Hulme to the position of Special Education Teacher at Judson School, effective for the 2005-2006 school year, being hired on Step 3, with a Masters Degree, 2 years of experience, at a contractual salary of $40,707.00.
e. Ms. Emily Judd to the position of Principal of Polk School effective August 15, 2005, being hired on a contractual salary of the Watertown Administrators Association, Step 3, $90,000.00.
f. Ms. Rajee Julian to the position of Long-Term Substitute Guidance Counselor at Watertown High School, effective August 22, 2005 through January 16, 2006, being hired at $60.00 per day for the first ten days, and then on day eleven, placed on the first step of the teacher’s salary contract for $35,350.00 prorated ($190.05 per diem).
g. Ms. Kathleen Kottwitz to the position of Chair School to Career Advisor at Watertown High School for the 2005-2006 school year at a contractual stipend of $4,000.00.
h. Ms. Jacquelyn Lavallee to the position of Biology Teacher at Watertown High School, effective for the 2005-2006 school year, being hired on Step 3, with a Bachelor’s Degree, with 2 years of experience, at a contractual salary of $37,493.00.
i. Ms. Lydia Petrocelli to the position of Grade 2 Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, effective for the 2005-2006 school year, being hired on Step 2, with a Bachelor’s Degree, with one year of experience, at a contractual salary of $36,422.00.
j. Ms. Kathleen Sklanka to the position of Science Teacher at Swift Middle School, effective for the 2005-2006 school year, being hired on Step 2, with a Master’s Degree, at a contractual salary of $39,100.00.
2. Transfers – (Information Only – No Action Required)
a. Ms. Joann Barthelmess from full-time Library Media Specialist at Swift Middle School to .40 Library Media Specialist and .60 Art Teacher at Swift Middle School.
3. Resignations – (Information Only – No Action Required)
a. Ms. Lauren Brown from the position of School Psychologist at Swift Middle School effective June 30, 2005 to accept another position.
b. Ms. Christina DaSilva from the position of Secretary I Grade II at Watertown High School effective August 15, 2005 to accept other employment.
c. Mr. F. Scott Mazuroski from the position of Grade 2 Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School effective August 8, 2005 to accept another position.
d. Ms. Marybel Mucciaro from the position of Paraprofessional at John Trumbull Primary School effective July 29, 2005 for personal reasons.
4. Cafeteria Report – (Information Only – No Action Required)
Attached for your information is the Student Lunch Program Report for June 2005. (See Attachment A.)
5. Superintendent’s Goals for the 2005-2006 School Year – First Reading
The Superintendent’s Goals for the 2005-2006 School Year are presented this evening for the first reading. (See Attachment B.)
6. Celebration of Excellence
The Board of Education would like to recognize the maintenance workers and custodians that do a terrific job all year for providing the best possible teaching and learning environment for our staff and students. (See Attachment C.)
Dr. Erardi: I am excited about Item 6 and I’m excited because I think it represents many of the bargaining units that work for your Board of Education. Throughout this summer there was common conversation about how hot it was and how unbearable it was, if you were not in air conditioning. I can sit here and tell you that as I visited schools for different occasions on a number of weeks throughout this summer, I would come back to the Central Office and grab Mr. LoFrese, our Director of Operations and continually tell him how impressed I was with the work that has been done. We are a week and a half before we open up our doors and through their real hard work, the guys who were in that heat everyday; I had the privileged last Friday to thank them, along with Mr. LoFrese. Again I let them know that the community has high expectations, as it should be, but it doesn’t happen by magic, it happens through hard work. There is a letter in your Board packet and I have extra copies for our audience if you don’t have a copy. There is a letter in your Board packet to Mr. LoFrese, their supervisor, which speaks directly to the hard work of our custodians, our maintainers and our supervisors. So, that the Board can put faces to names, I’d like for the gentlemen who are here tonight to stand if you would, so we can recognize who you are. If you could move forward and I’d like you to introduce yourself to the Board, name and what school you work in and perhaps the position that you have, that would be terrific. Guys, please come forward.
The following men stepped forward to identify themselves:
Gil Bouthot, John Trumbull, 2nd shift Craig Lamphier, Polk, Group Leader
Joe Campbell, Maintenance and Courier Dave Kennedy, Watertown High, Custodian Scott Sturges, Swift, Custodian Hank McGough, Judson,
Kevin Palmer, Watertown High Pool Jeff Hughes, Maintenance
Dan Nelson, Swift, Custodian Andy Kennedy, Trumbull
Lou Sirois, Swift
Dr. Erardi: I will defer to Mr. Lofrese for additional comments followed by Ms. Rosa.
Mr. LoFrese: I would also like to introduce Charlie Beliveau the Facilities manager. He was instrumental in helping to organize the efforts this summer as well as making sure these guys had the tools and materials they needed this summer. I’d also like to thank the entire staff for their willingness to grow and stretch this summer. We have added new things; having guys set up computers, all of that is extremely helpful in getting the schools open and ready for students. Thank you.
Ms. Rosa: On behalf of the Board I would like to thank you for your efforts on a regular basis but particularly this year. We realize it was a particularly difficult year for all of you and we appreciate your dedication and your hard work. Money being what it is, it is doubly important to have such dedicated people that help out at a time like this because we can’t afford to hire others to help you. So again, thank you so much on behalf of the students and the Board.
7. School Readiness Tour
The Annual School Readiness Inspection will take place on Friday, August 26, 2005 and will begin at 8:00 a.m. at Judson School. Board of Education members are invited and encouraged to attend.
Dr. Erardi invited any members that are able to attend this tour to please call Mr. LoFrese this evening.
8. Convocation Day
Convocation Day will take place on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 with the formal presentation beginning at 9:30 a.m. at John Trumbull Primary School. Administration is hoping that the Board of Education Chair, or her designee, will be available to address the district’s staff.
Dr. Erardi invited Ms. Rosa or her designee to be part of this year’s Convocation to address all of the employees. Convocation is expected to adjourn by 11:00 a.m. Any Board members wishing to attend were asked to notify the Central Office by August 31st.
9. Staffing Update
All vacant positions have been filled with the exception of two late resignations, that being a school psychologist and a requested one year leave of absence from a kindergarten teacher.
10. 2005-2006 Heating/Fuel Budget
Mr. Todd LoFrese, Director of Operations/Technology has provided details of the current heating/fuel budget. The budget is based on the assumption that all schools will use oil to heat the buildings, with the exception of John Trumbull Primary School and Polk School.
Account Line Budgeted Amount Anticipated Cost Anticipated Shortage
Diesel Fuel $102,000 $130,000 $ 28,000
Oil Heat $307,000 $420,000 $113,000
Gas Heat $137,000 $142,000 $ 5,000
Total $546,000 $692,000 $146,000
We use approximately 200,000 gallons of fuel oil and 60,000 gallons of diesel fuel each year. During the cold winter days, Watertown High School uses up to 800 gallons per day.
The Region #15 oil consortium continues to monitor prices daily. In addition, Todd met with Yankee Gas on Friday, August 19, 2005 to determine what pricing options may exist utilizing natural gas in all schools where it is available.
Mr. LoFrese: As illustrated in the Agenda and well known, fuel oil and diesel fuel are astronomically high at the current moment. We are projecting, if the rate is what it is today per gallon for fuel oil and diesel fuel, we are projecting a Budget shortage in those lines of approximately $140,000. We have not locked into a rate yet with the Region 15 consortium; history has shown that in the past after the Labor Day driving season, the prices have trended to come down. We are currently looking at this as a consortium of school districts. We are one of over 100 school districts and municipalities who participate in the consortium. Other items that I am currently looking into; I met with Yankee Gas on Friday and there are some attractive offers that we might be able to secure with them and firm up using gas for all of the schools, except Swift which is a fuel oil only school. If there are any other questions, I would be welcome to answer those.
Mr. Vicenzi: When will you know about Yankee Gas?
Mr. LoFrese: I should know something later this week.
Ms. Rosa: Maybe in time for Thursday’s meeting?
Mr. LoFrese: Yes.
11. Overview of Test Results – (Information Only)
A report will be given tonight by Dr. Philip A. Pelosi in relation to our students’ test scores. The tests that will be discussed are the Stanford Achievement Test (Grades 3, 5, 7), the Connecticut Mastery Test (Grades 4, 6, 8), the Otis-Lennon Test (Grades 2, 4, 7, 9), and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (Grade 10).
Dr. Erardi: The last item tonight is an annual report that is given by the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum. I know Dr. Pelosi has prepared this evening data-driven information that maybe will not result in questions from the Board of Education, but it is a report I think, at least when I looked at it, it is a report with a great deal to be proud of with the way our schools performed in 2004-2005.
Dr. Pelosi: Good evening, what is prepared for you on these slides in this PowerPoint are the testing reports of the Otis-Lennon Test that the students take in grades 2, 4, 7 and 9. The Stanford Achievement Test in grades 3, 5 and 7 and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test and also the Mastery Test.
The Otis-Lennon is administered in grades 2, 4, 7 and 9, it’s the only test of its kind that is given in the district and it’s a power measure of abstract thinking and reasoning ability. It’s very similar to an IQ test. Again, it’s the only one that we have unless we do an evaluation of a student and this tells us the general intellectual ability. It’s the type of test where the items on the test cannot be taught or learned. It’s what the students bring to the school at these grade levels. At each grade level on the far right, you can see the range is from 101.9. They call it the SAI, School Ability Index, like an IQ score, up through 104.7 in grade 2. They are very similar. All of them fall within the high-average range, so what we have are students who come to us with a stamine 6. There are 9 stanines. They just move out of 5 and into 6 by 10’s of points, which puts them either in a mid or high average range. So, the scores that you’ll see on tests that are curriculum driven show that those students with this ability really outscore their ability.
Next is the Stanford Achievement Test. The first administration of the new test was given in the Fall of 2001. It’s administered in grades 3, 5, and 7. It’s Norm-referenced, which means that it has items in the test that discriminate students and puts them along a bell-shaped curve, from bottom level remedial to average and up to the top level. It’s not like the Mastery Test where we can actually teach the curriculum and teach the items. The students are also not exposed to the items on this test. It discriminates among students. We have an overview of the Percentile Analysis and what this means is that this is the actual percentile from 1-99 in which the group students as an entire group, or grade level, score, or what we would expect an individual student to score. First we look at the groups. The chart lists the percentile rank of the scores of each grade, so it is taken as an entire grade. What that means is, they compare for example, the third grade in Watertown taken as a group, all of them, to similar third grades across the country. Again, it reflects the group score, not the individual score. I compared last year’s scores to this year and if you look at the top, Total Reading, the students as a group were at 91%, which means that only 9% of other third grades in the country outscored us as a group. This year they scored at 90% and what we have been focusing on is Reading Comprehension, so they moved up a little bit in that into the 92%. In Math we have been looking at Problem Solving because they are higher level skills, so I indicated those as well. You can see that the Problem Solving scores for example in grade 5 were at 71% last year and 59% this year. They are expected to score at 50% so they are at the 59%. However, that is a drop and the concern is that it is a drop, but if you look at problem solving they are at 83% and that is what we have been focusing on. Again, you can’t teach to the test but we have been emphasizing problem solving skills, higher level skills and you can see that the students did relatively well in those areas. It doesn’t mean that we aren’t concerned, however, with what happened in the fifth grade in the total Math area. Our Language scores are consistently high in the high 80’s, mid 80’s to the 90’s. In grade 7 the Reading Comp is in the 90th and the Problem Solving is at 83%.
Next, we are looking at an individual student. In other words, if you are a parent and you have a child in third grade, you may say, gee this is the percentile which my child scored; 52nd in Reading, what does that mean? What is the expected score of an average third grader in Watertown? (If there is such a thing as an average or normal person.) Again, a comparison from last year to this year, 67% last year and it stayed the same at 67% this year. That would mean if a child scored at the 67% percentile when the expectation is 50%, so the students are doing better than average. The Reading Comprehension is at 65% and if we look at our Language scores they are at 60’s and 70’s. Someone may say that I showed you a group score in Reading that was at the 90%, how come an individual student is at 67%? It is the same grade. I would expect my child to get a 67 and you are telling me that the grade level scored at 90%. It is very simple. If you think of the college boards, you could get an 800 in verbal, if you scored 600, only 10% scored ahead of you. This is like saying this is the 600 and that was the 800. It is comparing an individual score to a total score. You still could have plenty of room to get to the 99th, but the score is good.
Next is how the students did as to what we expected. The expectation of the score is in the middle. That is an average score, and given the SAI, they should have been closer to the 50% and, as you can see, they are past that by at least 10%, except in that fifth grade Math, it is 3% and in third it is 9%, so they did relatively well on this test.
The next slide is to show if you connected those, you would get a normal bell shape curve from the bottom all the way up through. If you look at that, what we would expect in red is to have 23% in Remedial, 54% is the Expectation average and 23% in Above Average. What we have is 4% Remedial, indicated by the black versus the red, we have 62% Average which is more in the middle and at the top we have 34% in the Above Average range versus 23%. So, when you cluster the kids together, you can see why the group scores are much higher because it is heavily weighted towards the right side versus the left.
This is what I think is really important. Here we are looking at students who were in grade 7 this past year, the same students, the majority of them, accounting for some moving out, or a few moving in, who were fifth graders two years ago, from the same group who were third graders four years ago. It actually tracks the progress of almost the same group of students versus one year when you have a very good group or one year you may not have such a very good group. Here it is the same group and are they progressing? You could see here that the trend in red is what should happen. Our kids are not only doing better than that but they are well above what is in red, in each grade level. The kids starting in third dip down a little in fifth in the Reading and Math, not much, nothing significant and then they move up, but they are well above what is expected. The equated scores are down below which is why they are a little different than the 50th percentile. I had to do an equating study in order to get this accurate because in third grade, they were taking the other SAT, the SAT8. So, I had to equate all of the scores to have it on an even playing field, rather than just use the actual because that wouldn’t have been correct.
The Connecticut Mastery Test, that is given in the Fall and here in the Fall of 2004. This is the fifth administration since 2000. We are looking at the students in grades 4, 6 and 8. Here we are comparing Watertown students to the ERG which is our Educational Reference Group which is supposed to be similar socio-economic, status, size, similar demographics and the difference between Watertown and the State. One thing that I want to point out is that this is the percentage of students, it’s not the score. It’s the percentage of kids who scored at the goal levels, which is a lofty level. So when you see these, they are different form the Stanford Achievement, it’s not the 58th percentile, it is 58% of the students in Math in grade 4 met goal. For No Child Left Behind, they can score below that, but for the State of Connecticut, this is what they scored. If you look at the Writing scores, 78%, 73% and 78% reaching goal, that is an excellent score, and if you look across and compare them, you can see how they outscored the State and the ERG pretty well in almost every area. Students are above the State again in Math, grade 4. It’s very close. The ERG was 61%. We were 58% and the State was 57%. The Reading moves from 58% to 74% to 82% as your student move the grade. This phenomenon has occurred since the beginning of the test, and what we are doing with our new curriculum, and our uniform assessments, and our vertical teams, is really taking a very close look at what is happening in Reading, especially in terms of critical stance with the students in K, 1, 2 and 3. That has been an extensive study and we know what we are going to do, because the Board has approved it. We are going to give the kids more non-fiction and allowing them to take that critical stance.
Next are the Mastery Results. These are the student percentages Above Basic. You can see almost all of the students scored above Basic and when I say all, there is a slight exaggeration here. Fourth grade Reading - there is a 15% who did not and we range from 2% in Writing, again, 98% of the fourth graders scored above the intervention level. That is also a good job. The teachers and administrators are making sure that curriculum is being taught with again, discussion of certain key areas that we need to focus upon.
Next Chart: Here we have at or above State Goals and the comparisons.
Next, we have the Longitudinal Studies of the students who started out in fourth and moved up and up in Reading, Math stayed flat and then Writing again moves up. It is that Mathematics area and even though the Mastery Test is a criterion reference that you could teach to, embedded in the test are items that discriminate among students. As a member of the Mathematics Committee for the Mastery Test, the P value, the level of difficulty, sixth grade is the most difficult item of discrimination here. There is so much money invested in the test that they are not going to change at this point.
The CAPT Test was shared with the Board when we received it last Spring. We have Mathematics, Reading Across the Disciplines, Writing and Science. When we look at these, the percent at or Above Intervention again it is very high. Percent at Goal, what happened here is, if you look at the Science, Reading and Writing went up and we believe, we’ll see, that this is due to our heterogeneous groupings of students in grades 9 and 10 and expecting more out of all students instead of tracking them in low level classes.
Next, we have Percentages used to Calculate for No Child Left Behind and if you look at this, these are the percentages that are reported to the government. They reviewed Connecticut’s standards and they felt Proficiency, Goal and Advanced added together, which the Math is 83%, the Science is 94%. That is the number of students who met that level, the Reading is 91% and the Writing is 90%. So when you look at the Goal and you say for example, 56% were in Goal for Science and then you look 94%, you have a large number right below that, and only 6% were below the Proficiency level. If you look at the State and the ERG, our comparisons are very good, we have outscored in every area except the Mathematics which was 83% and the ERG was 83.5%.
Next, you see the towns that the ERG contains. These are towns that the State and readers, people who compartmentalize the ERG, felt that Watertown was similar to these districts. You may not agree with this, but this is where we were placed and that is what that comparison was made against.
Next, here for The No Child Left Behind, if we have 40 students or more in any subgroup, all of these, we have to meet the Racial/Ethnic, Gender, Disability, Migrant, Educational Proficiency, Economic, Free and Reduced Lunch. We have to meet this in all of our areas and make AYP and the report will come at the next meeting, or Dr. Erardi will share that with you in his Pipeline.
So, as you can see, there is a lot that has to be done. What do we do as a result of having all of this information? The Administrators, the Staff and Coordinators analyze the data, target specific areas of strengths and weaknesses. They also look at student work in addition to test scores because the test is taken on a certain day or certain days and the student work is done all the time and those are the half days that the Board has granted us to use for structured ways of looking at work, called Protocols. We also add that into the picture when we revise curriculum. We have our vertical teams which mean that K-12 is represented, teachers are on the committee and they talk about for example, “I am a fourth grade teacher and when kids come to me they don’t have this but they are really strong in this.” Then they decide at the end of the meeting, do we need to form a committee to address that area? If we do then, we form that committee and we really take a hard look at that. The other group does that. The vertical team just points out strengths and weaknesses and they have that discussion among themselves. Generally, the meeting is an hour. We structure it so that we get a lot done in a short time. They have to come with all of their information. That information for example will be culled from what they do on August 29th and 30th, the two Professional Development days. A lot of it deals with curriculum and they have to bring that to their vertical team members. Staff meetings are held by principals and coordinators to review everything. Professional development then kicks in. What do the teachers need to have the delivery of instruction in the classroom be increased and also to increase student achievement. Then we offer the Professional Development days and administrators have to evaluate teachers utilizing what they were in-serviced. They then have to measure, has the instruction changed? This year Our Center for School Change Grant is focusing on the very last piece, how do we ensure that what we have done with the protocol has changed the way teaching is being done and that it is effective so that scores increase.
The Staff Goals are for the Teachers and all Staff to move from an isolated community to one where people are talking to one another and trying to figure out the way of the land, to make things better. To move from a non-focused environment to one that is very focused, not just saying OK. This is what we have to do but being committed to what we have to do. We are hoping that the movement toward collaboration, focus and commitment will improve teaching. Student’s goals we want to improve upon achievement. Our Strategic Plan calls for 100% mastery and so does NCLB by 2014. Our plan calls for it in 5 years, 3 more and that students feel better about themselves, and self esteem is improved.
With all of this, it is just the beginning. Thank you. Are there any questions?
Ms. Dzioba: You said, as Ms. Calabrese said in her report, that the Stanford is the test you want to eliminate, what is that going to be replaced by?
Dr. Pelosi: The Mastery, as you saw, is administered in 4, 6 and 8 and the CAPT in 10. Those are the State tests, starting this Spring in 2006, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. So, those will be the State-wide tests. So, instead of having Fall and Spring testing for 3rd graders, actually having double testing, the districts are moving to just the Connecticut Mastery test because that is what the accountability piece is based on for No Child Left Behind. They don’t base it on the Stanford achievement that was for our information but we will still administer with the Board’s approval, the Otis-Lennon, so we do have that score and that is a National test. Of course, the students will get another test. We do have other tests that the psychologists administer, the Woodcock-Johnson and other kinds of tests for very specific issues. It is just to eliminate the double testing.
I. Report from the Chairman
Ms. Rosa: We are going to set up a new committee called the Capitol Improvement or Capitol Items Committee. Vic has agreed to be the Chairman, so I’ll let him come up with the final name on it. What we are talking about is compiling a list and prioritizing it for all those capitol projects that need to be done at the various schools and they will be working with Todd. At this point, I think we are just going to start gathering some information and will ask for participation from the public and other individuals after the election when we know who all of the Board members are. It is definitely a committee where we need to put together a list of those items and potentially bring it to the public for approval to get some of the work done. We are talking about some of the things like the lights at the High School and the repairs at Judson. Those kinds of items that are very large.
J. Action Items – Adoption of Items to be Approved by Consent
a. Consideration of the Approval of The Superintendent’s Evaluation Tool – Second Reading
The Superintendent’s evaluation tool to be used for the evaluation of the Superintendent of Schools was presented to the full Board of Education for the first reading at its meeting on July 25, 2005. The Superintendent’s evaluation tool is presented for the second reading tonight and for Board of Education approval. (See Attachment D.)
It is recommended that the Board approve of the Superintendent’s Evaluation Tool.
Motion presented by Ms. Calabrese, seconded by Ms. Pannone that the Board approve of the Superintendent’s Evaluation Tool.
Discussion:
Ms. Rosa: Board members will recall that during the time of the tenure of Dr. Ramos, we talked about a different type of Superintendent’s Evaluation Tool. We even went so far as to have a committee looking into the various tools. It was the recommendation of Dr. Ramos, and I believe from talking with Dr. Erardi, that the new way of doing this is verbal and not written. If you feel, as Board members, that you would like to talk about this further, then you would need to defeat this Item on the Agenda. If you feel you would like to do it as a verbal, which is what we discussed, you would have to defeat this Item. Does anyone have any questions before we vote?
Ms. Calabrese: My question would simply be, maybe we would want to review in our minds exactly what would be entailed in that verbal.
Ms. Rosa: OK, so maybe we would sit and have a meeting and structure how the verbal would go.
Ms. Calabrese: I don’t know about anyone else, but it has been a while since I recall discussing it. We might want to just go over how exactly that would be done.
Ms. Rosa: OK, that is a good idea.
Motion Defeated Unanimously
(0-In Favor, 6-Opposed, 0-Abstained)
b. Consideration of the Approval of Childrearing Leave of Absence
Ms. Tricia Cote, Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, requests a childrearing leave of absence without pay for the 2005-2006 school year effective August 29, 2005.
It is recommended that the Board approve of a childrearing leave of absence for Ms. Tricia Cote, Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, without pay for the 2005-2006 school year effective August 29, 2005.
Motion presented by Ms. Calabrese seconded by Mr. Vicenzi that the Board approve of a childrearing leave of absence for Ms. Tricia Cote, Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, without pay for the 2005-2006 school year effective August 29, 2005.
Motion Passed Unanimously
(6-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained)
c. Consideration of the Approval of Extended Family Medical Leave of Absence
Ms. Sarah DeLeo, .5 Developmental Preschool Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, requests an extended Family Medical Leave of Absence commencing August 29, 2005 for four weeks without pay.
It is recommended that the Board approve of an extended Family Medical Leave of Absence for Ms. Sarah DeLeo, .5 Developmental Preschool Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, commencing August 29, 2005 for four weeks without pay.
Motion presented by Ms. Pannone seconded by Mr. Marks that the Board approve of an extended Family Medical Leave of Absence for Ms. Sarah DeLeo, .5 Developmental Preschool Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, commencing August 29, 2005 for four weeks without pay.
d. Consideration of the Approval of Childbearing Leave of Absence
Ms. Sherri Marquadt, .5 Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, requests a childbearing leave of absence commencing approximately September 1, 2005 for six weeks with use of 10 sick days and then leave without pay and a medical doctor’s note to return.
It is recommended that the Board approve of a childbearing leave of absence for Ms. Sherri Marquadt, .5 Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, commencing approximately September 1, 2005 for six weeks with use of 10 sick days and then leave without pay and a medical doctor’s note to return.
Motion presented by Ms. Calabrese seconded by Ms. Pannone that the Board approve of a childbearing leave of absence for Ms. Sherri Marquadt, .5 Kindergarten Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, commencing approximately September 1, 2005 for six weeks with use of 10 sick days and then leave without pay and a medical doctor’s note to return.
e. Consideration of the Approval of Acceptance of Gifts
1. Ms. Ann Marie Reeser, on behalf of the Junior Scouts, Troop #4208, would like to donate a community service project by the Junior Scouts. The project would include repainting the fire truck playscape at Polk School and cleaning up the area with an approximate estimate of materials to be $50.00 which would be their gift to the community.
It is recommended that the Board accept the gift of repainting the fire truck playscape at Polk School and cleaning up the area with an approximate estimate of materials to be $50.00 by the Junior Scouts, Troop #4208 and a letter of thanks to be sent to the Junior Scouts.
Motion presented by Ms. Pannone seconded by Mr. Marks that the Board accept the gift of repainting the fire truck playscape at Polk School and cleaning up the area with an approximate estimate of materials to be $50.00 by the Junior Scouts, Troop #4208 and a letter of thanks to be sent to the Junior Scouts.
Ms. Rosa: That’s very nice.
2. An anonymous donor wishes to donate funds to repair and reseal the basketball blacktop at Heminway Park School.
It is recommended that the Board accept this generous donation and a letter of thanks to be sent to the donor.
Motion presented by Ms. Pannone seconded by Mr. Vicenzi that the Board accept this generous donation from an anonymous donor who wishes to donate funds to repair and reseal the basketball blacktop at Heminway Park School.
Ms. Rosa: I’m assuming that the appropriate financial arrangements will be made since we can’t take cash so we will see that it is handled so that this can be taken care of. Please express to the anonymous donor our gratitude for that if you would.
f. Consideration of the Approval of Increase in Daily Rate for Substitute Teachers and Substitute Nurses
It is recommended that the Board approve of an increase in the daily rate for Substitute Teachers from $60.00 to $65.00 and Substitute Nurses from $72.00 to $85.00. The enhanced per diem rate will move Watertown’s daily pay rate just below the mean average of the surveyed districts. (See Attachment E.)
Motion presented by Ms. Calabrese seconded by Ms. Dzioba that the Board approve of an increase in the daily rate for Substitute Teachers from $60.00 to $65.00 and Substitute Nurses from $72.00 to $85.00. The enhanced per diem rate will move Watertown’s daily pay rate just below the mean average of the surveyed districts.
Ms. Calabrese: I’d like to say that especially for the substitutes nurses, how important this really is to attract nurses who might be willing to do this. Sometimes it might be a stay-at-home Mom who is willing to do this. Very important, there are a lot of medical issues that exist in schools today and sometimes it feels like a catastrophe when you have a nurse out sick in a building. I know as someone who has had to dispense medication and take care of things. It really is very difficult and this is very, very important. I’m glad to see that.
Ms. Rosa: My question is, “How do we budget? Maybe there is something between now and Thursday that we could look at? It’s not going to have a dramatic impact, but it might have a mall impact but as Gina says, it is very worthwhile.”
K. Future Agenda Items
No future Items from the Board members at this time.
L. Public Participation
No one wished to address the Board at this time.
M. Adjournment
Motion presented by Mr. Vicenzi seconded by Mr. Marks to adjourn the Regular Board of Education Meeting of August 22, 2005.
Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joseph V. Erardi, Jr., Ed.D., Superintendent
Barbara Mordenti, Board Clerk