Draft: September 19, 2007
Approved: Oct. 17, 2007
School Committee meeting September 19, 2007
Under Report of the Secretary
5:30 P.M. Executive Session
Members present: Robert O’Brien, Lori Gramlich, John Coyne, Benjamin Meiklejohn, Ellen Alcorn, Susan Hopkins, Sarah Thompson, Peter Eglinton, Rebecca Minnick
At 6:40 pm Ms. Gramlich moved, seconded and voted 8-1 to move into Executive Session to consider the appointment of an Interim Superintendent of Schools pursuant to 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A).
At 6:55 pm it was moved, seconded and voted unanimously to come out of Executive Session.
Members present: Robert O’Brien, Lori Gramlich, John Coyne, Benjamin Meiklejohn, Ellen Alcorn, Susan Hopkins, Sarah Thompson, Peter Eglinton, Rebecca Minnick, Anthony Toppi, Bennett Gross, Maureen Quinn
Mr. Coyne asked that an item be taken out of order.
Addendum:
Ms. Gramlich moved, seconded Ms. Minnick to approve the appointment of Jeanne Whynot-Vickers as Interim Superintendent of Schools effective September 19, 2007 to June 30, 2008.
Vote: It was voted unanimously to approve the appointment of Jeanne Whynot-Vickers as Interim Superintendent of Schools effective September 19, 2007 to June 30, 2008.
(students with majority)
Ms. Whynot-Vickers spoke briefly regarding her appointment as Interim Superintendent of Schools.
Report of the Chair
Mr. Coyne:
Interim Superintendent Ms. Whynot-Vickers:
· Announced resignations: Effective 09/01/07
Barbara Avery Special Ed/Deering 19 years
Donna
Laber Social
Studies/King Middle School 24
years
· Indicated that she has been in all the schools. Schools very welcoming despite what has been taking place in the district. Thanked all staff for all of their efforts in getting the schools ready.
· Introduced Kevin Mallory who provided a brief update on the transportation policy process and how it is being implemented. Ms. Whynot-Vickers spoke to the changes in transportation services.
Ms Thompson :
· wants to review problematic areas;
· concerns about families with special ed child and other siblings;
· regarding Moore – only school with late bus - is there a way to accommodate students who would have ridden the late bus?
· Asked about high school students from Riverton to DHS but not PHS.
· Asked about sidewalks and snow removal - has he talked with city?
· Does Mr. Mallory see us canceling school?
· Would there be any savings if there were no exceptions to EECS?
Mr Mallory:
· the latest bus out of Moore created overtime and there was a need to reduce overtime. No other school in city had late bus. He would move from 3:40 to 4pm, but school committee would need to approve this.
· Originally Riverton students had metro tickets, but transportation could do transportation cheaper to PHS where ELL program was. Always was designated as an ELL bus, but not for regular ed students.
· As for snow removal, he will be meeting next week with city to review plans to clear routes for sidewalks, etc. Regarding EECS – there would be 3 buses in am and pm.
Mr. Coyne– asked that cell phones be turned off.
Mr. O’Brien –transportation policy to be considered needs to have ELL /Sagamore added.
Ms. Alcorn:
· asked about siblings, i.e. kindergarten who can ride, but an upper grade sibling cannot ride even though seats are available.
Mr. Mallory indicated that this is a matter of fairness throughout the city.
Mr. Meiklejohn:
· asked if there were routes that due to safety where there might be the need for extra crossing guards. .
· asked what cost is for a crossing guard vs. bussing.
· Has anyone been looking to share transportation with other districts – what is happening?
· In utilizing taxi cabs for special ed students - is there is an over expenditure?
· Requested data from metro pilot last year to be given to the school committee.
Mr. Mallory :
· Did indicate that even though there is a crossing guard at Washington Ave. students are bussed to Presumpscot. Crossing guards come under the traffic/parking division and he did not have a cost comparison.
· There has been some sharing of busing students, i.e., PPS and Westbrook students to/from Sweetser in Saco. Most districts are resistant to cooperate with other districts, but with consolidation districts will be required to look at working with other districts.
· Special Ed funding used for taxicabs is not part of the transportation budget.
Ms. Hopkins –asked about Mr. Mallory’s recommendation on policy EEA. Mr. Mallory - Guidelines should be reviewed by Central Office and principals.
Mr. Eglinton–asked about EECS.
Mr. Mallory - when EECS was opened a temporary exception was made –purpose was to improve attendance through bussing at the school.
Mr. Coyne –asked about special ed out of district placement numbers and if these have come down?
Ms. Dee – these have gone up somewhat – approx. 21 students.
Ms. Gramlich – are there special ed students who are from other districts?
Ms. Dee – there are students from other districts who ride PPS buses, there are some taxis being used, as well as RTP. She indicated that approximately $43,000 had been spent last year with some of it being reimbursed through the state.
Ms. Minnick– would there be any possibility of using public transportation for special ed students? Ms. Dee– that has been utilized.
Mr. Gross- asked why there are no free Metro passes this year.
Mr. Mallory – last year it was a pilot program and now .50.
Ms. Thompson moved, seconded Ms. Minnick to approve the meeting minutes of the
August 22, 2007 and August 29, 2007 meetings. (Students voted with majority)
Mr. Meiklejohn = asked about the possibility of the community section of the web site being used for donations.
Ms. Thompson – referenced some information that is available on the CDC web site on Walking Schools.
Mr. Toppi– requested the following information: high school over expenditures and how must is result of salaries: student/teacher ratios at each high school, student/teacher ratio without free/reduced and non-special ed; current enrollment at three high schools. He also asked about the status of grant funding. Ms. Whynot-Vickers indicated that this is in process and feels that should be done this week.
Mr. Eglinton– media reported that a key report was late to the state. He would like to know what reports need to be submitted to the state with due dates.
Consent Items
Superintendent Whynot-Vickers reviewed the donations and thanked the contributor.
a. EEA – Transportation
Mr. O’Brien moved, seconded Ms. Minnick to approve policy EEA-Transportation
Mr. O’Brien reviewed the policy.
Vote: It was voted unanimously to approve policy EEA-Transportation (Students voted with majority)
b. BBAB –Student Representation to the School Committee
Mr. O’Brien moved, seconded Ms. Minnick to approve policy BBAB –Student Representation to the School Committee
Mr.O’Brien – spoke to policy.
Clarifying questions:
Ms. Alcorn– is there any reason not to vote during subcommittee meetings?
Mr. O’Brien – indicated that it is a subcommittee preference vs. legal issue.
Mr. Meiklejohn – asked if students have met with chair and superintendent per guidelines.
Public debate:
Tony Donovan – asked if schools decide whether student reps are sophomores or juniors. Recommends that the student reps be juniors not sophomores.
Debate:
Mr. Meiklejohn– supports policy. Only exception is that student rep does not vote on the Finance Committee
Mr. O’Brien– student reps can vote in subcommittee meetings as there are no binding votes. Student reps are juniors at Portland High and Deering High, but Casco Bay High’s guidelines allow for sophomores or juniors. The Policy Committee felt that the campaign would bring the strongest candidate forward whether a sophomore or junior. He also suggested a change in wording in the last paragraph from “the nominations” to– “Elected students names”
Ms. Quinn– feels that juniors should serve on the sc. Would a student be allowed to run for two terms in a row? Mr. O’Brien – things could be changed later on.
Ms. Minnick– doesn’t see a problem with students serving two terms.
Vote: It was voted unanimously to approve policy BBAB –Student Representation to the School Committee. (Students - 2 yea, 1 nay)
Ms. Thompson moved, seconded Mr. Meiklejohn to opt into the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) and National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC) programs as part of the local entitlement application process.
Ms. Whynot-Vickers and Ms. Dee – spoke to motion. Ms. Dee indicated that she may be able to provide a report in Dec. on what cost savings have been realized as a result of ordering through these organizations.
Clarifying questions:
Ms. Gramlich– asked it there is any cost to opting in. Ms. Dee – no cost.
Vote: It was voted unanimously to opt into the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) and National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC) programs as part of the local entitlement application process. (Students voted with majority)
2.
Consideration and action to accept the recommendation of
the 3x3 Elementary Facilities Committee regarding the Clifford School project.
Ms. Alcorn moved, seconded Mr. Coyne to accept the recommendation of the 3x3 Elementary Facilities Committee regarding the Clifford School project.
Ms. Alcorn – read 3x3 recommendation: Support the recommendation of the architect for new construction, recommend to the School Committee that West School be closed and the spatial needs of those students be incorporated into the new building’s design and/or subsequent redistricting and furthermore that the School Committee assess both the impact on other schools of redistricting students accordingly and the feasibility of achieving additional school closures resulting from such redistricting.
Mike Johanning, architect, did a brief summary of the process to date new vs. renovation. March 2008 would be concept approval date. Need to submit site approval for new construction. Reviewed six criteria that were used to determine new vs. renovation.
Clarifying questions:
Mr. Meiklejohn – 1) what affect would location of new school affect design of school?
Mr. Johanning– location will determine type of facility, i.e. building orientation. If vote for new vs. renovation then more in-depth site determinations will begin. 2) Regarding West School – previous elementary facilities recommendation was not to be contained in new facility, but in a separate facility. If state knows that new building would include West population would state support a smaller facility on the site for the West students? Mr. Johanning – not aware of any project that state has built two separate structures.
Mr. Eglinton– 1) if school committee decided to request an extension what is process and how quickly would answer come back? Mr. Johanning – DOE has been contacted regarding a second waiver – this has not happened before. What state will be looking at will be a very specific time frame to have work completed in order for DOE to look at project funding throughout the state. 2) if there is an extension are there things that could be done to shorten process? 3) very thorough job has been done by WBRC – has any thought been given to a lower renovation project cost? Mr. Johanning– talked about what state looks at for renovation. They want everything to come to standard – if anything will fall short they will not fund it. 3) is state funding guaranteed once a project is approved – concept approved? Mr. Johanning – even after concept approval does not necessarily mean funding is guaranteed.
Ms. Hopkins – had 3x3 voted to renovate Clifford in May where would we be? Mr. Johanning - concept plans may have been completed; 2) would WBRC have looked at options regarding pickup/drop off areas? Mr. Johanning – still would need approval from state for traffic issues.
Ms. Alcorn– barriers to renovation are same now as in May. Would it have been any more likely to have a renovation decision in May ? Mr. Johanning – same issues would have come up whether in May or now.
Mr. Meiklejohn– concerned to vote on recommend since a site still needs to be determined. There is still a process for site selection. Could a site be selected tonight? If state reviews site plan they will weigh in they weigh in on physical site? Mr. Johanning – WBRC is looking at two sites – need to complete tests to see how buildings might sit and committee could vote for a site if that is the wish. The state has 20 points that they review and they will look at all pieces to see impact of project.
Ms. Thompson– when energy code came to light when was it realized that Clifford does not meet the energy code? Mr. Johanning – energy code will be challenge, but a number of structures could be updated. As part of the analysis WBRC looked at elementary school – structure of walls, etc. Modifications to Clifford are a higher level of difficulty.
Ms. Gramlich – looked at structures of all buildings? Would all be in compliance of energy code? Asked what plans are for other elementary facilities. Mr. Johanning – looked at structures of build and would be easier to bring other buildings up to energy code except Clifford. When code comes in to play is when building is being renovated. Ms. Alcorn – this opportunity for state funding brings a difficult decision of new vs. renovation of Clifford. Some members of 3x3 felt some issues belonged at the school committee level. Nick Mavodones – 3x3 committee has a lengthy charge – have not addressed all issues.
Mr. Meiklejohn – 3x3 has not completed full charge yet, there is work that has been done in previous years, i.e. regarding anchor schools. 2002 elementary facilities report has a time line to phase in changes to elem. Schools.
Mr. Toppi – what will 3x3 task force schedule look like if school committee does not vote to approve? Ms. Alcorn – if an extension is requested there is the chance that the March 2008 deadline will not be met.
Nick Mavodones - there are two separate schedules, i.e. 2002 elementary facilities report and redistricting. There is issue with state board. He spoke with Glenn Cummings and Nick is not optimistic that a waiver would be granted based on their criteria.
Ms. Gramlich–if a new school is built has there been a discussion of the number of student population? Site location by default would involve redistricting. Nick Mavodones – a new school might include 400 – architects tried to do a model for renovation or a new school. State has a particular size threshold. If a school is too small they will not consider it. Redistricting has been discussed. School dept and architects provided information and there are clearly more buildings than there is population. Redistricting does have to happen.
Mr. O’Brien– asked about state process new vs. renovation. Once site is selected can it be changed? Size of school 500? Is site selection is early on in the process? Because of size and location redistricting will need to take place. Mr. Johanning – there has been a vast amount of work done. 400 is what is being considered not 500.
Nick Mavodones– compared process to EECS process. If new school or renovation construction would be for the best teaching and learning today and this would bring about redistricting, which the school committee would take into consideration and it might be a bit immature to look at specific redistricting early on. More appropriate once know what school will be affected.
Ms. Thompson - could new be chosen if West wasn’t torn down? Asked if anyone spoke with West director and special ed director directly? Why was Douglass Street even considered for a new facility with methane gas, etc.? Toured West school and had heard that West could be a moneymaker for the district if students were brought back into the district.
Mr. Johanning– 3x3 did take West into consideration. A new building would be as far north next to the pool as possible.
Nick Mavodones – West does sit on a dump and facility probably should be closed in the near future. No one has suggested the specific location of West, but further down on the property might be a possibility.
Barbara Dee – opposed to moving West students into a Clifford population. There is a need in Southern Maine for this type of therapeutic program might be able to tuition students into the district.
Mr. Eglinton – did 3x3 examine impact on taxpayers? . On new vs. renovation - did the 3x3 have discussions on benefits of recommendation?
Nick Mavodones – no significant discussions on that.
Mr. Eglinton - Regarding consolidation/redistricting – what level discussions took place about what other schools for closure?
Mr. Johanning– discussion of benefits of new instruction and education/high performing schools.
Mr. Meiklejohn - indicated that a previous extensive report was done in 2002, which will provide guidance. If K-8 programming was considered this might result in such a closure.
Ms. Alcorn – indicated that no one has ever suggested this would result in closure of several schools.
Ms. Thompson - asked if k-8 concept was considered.
Nick Mavodones – this was discussed. However, the school committee other than having a concept discussion could not provide guidance on a facility that might be k-8. There was never anything concrete that the school committee would go down that path.
Ms. Hopkins– superintendent had indicated that DOE accepted strategic plan as a comprehensive ed plan. Architects did a facilities analysis of elementary schools.
Mr. Gross – what would happen to Clifford if new facility is built?
Nick Mavodones – school committee decides whether or not Clifford has any further educational value, if not, then it is turned over to the city. City would then look at what might be a good use for that building.
Mr. Eglinton - at elementary level are there empty classrooms or classes with low numbers and could a current facility accommodate another complete school?
Ms. Whynot-Vickers –there are some empty classrooms and there are some under enrolled. There is no facility that could accommodate another complete school. Mentioned 2002 elementary facilities report and reassessment of facilities every two years by DOE.
Mr. O’Brien – will 3x3 work on re-districting?
Nick Mavodones – this would turn that back to school committee.
Ms. Hopkins - problems to renovate Clifford will be problems Portland Public Schools will be facing in the future with other older buildings. Mr. Johanning – there is some legislation that will look at energy codes and historic buildings. Down the road these issues will be specific project to project.
Mr. Gross– asked what cost would be to renovate. Mr. Johanning - $21M.
Ms. Alcorn – this would be without any consideration to energy code.
Mr. Coyne– if renovation vs. new – what would be added? Mr. Johanning– gym, library space and reconfigure entrance, new stair towers, elevator. If keeping number of students down no need to build extra classrooms.
Ms. Gramlich – aren’t all buildings in need of being ADA? Mr. Johanning– when renovated then need to meet ADA, but if not renovated no ADA requirements.
Mr. Eglinton– new spaces being added – basement too large to house what would go into a basement. Was any consideration given to library space, etc? Mr. Johanning – when looking at basement now building has sunk into the ground and could not be used. Other half would be used for program space.
Public Comment:
17 community members addressed the Committee on this issue.
Debate:
Mr. Meiklejohn–spoke to work of 3x3, which has not been finished yet. Concerned about even possibly trying to complete a master plan for redistricting. Demographics change, etc.
Mr. O’Brien – does not support.
Ms. Minnick- does not support. Weak arguments on configurations, parking,
Mr. Eglinton moved to direction superintendent too request
extension from the state board of education.
(proposed motion failed for lack of a second)
Mr. Eglinton spoke to proposed motion.
Debate:
Ms. Alcorn - spoke to amendment, state of facilities, declining enrollment, etc.
Mr. Meiklejohn –does not support amendment.
Ms. Thompson- spoke to issue before the committee. Lack of long-term plan for system.
Mr. Eglinton – withdrew amendment.
Back to main motion.
Ms. Gramlich - spoke to main motion. Does not support Supports CBHS on premise, but there is no plan going forward and this also applies to not having a plan going forward on the 3x3 recommend.
Ms. Alcorn– asked if there are any comprehensive plans in place?
Ms. Whynot-Vickers– comprehensive plans have been done, but feels they become outdated rather quickly.
Mr. Eglinton moved, seconded Ms. Thompson to direct the superintendent to request an extension from the State Board of Education in Oct. 2007 and if denied immediately accept the recommendations of the 3x3 committee.
Mr. Eglinton - spoke to motion.
Ms. Thompson – what is expectation of when commissioner will respond to extension request? Could WBRC meet expectations if a reply is received between November and March.?
Ms. Hopkins – asked Mr. Johanning when new State Board comes on and indicated Oct. A previous waiver request was submitted to State Board and then appeared on their next monthly agenda.
Ms. Alcorn–asked Mr. Eglinton what he would hope to obtain by an extension? Mr. Eglinton– to allow time to get more information on what impacts would be on students, what schools would be affected, and to make a decision on what would be best for the city.
Mr. Coyne - does not support motion.
Mr. Meiklejohn – does not support motion.
Ms. Alcorn - call for vote.
Vote: It was voted 3-6 to direct the superintendent to request an extension from the State Board of Education in Oct. 2007 and if denied immediately accept the recommendations of the 3x3 committee. (Students voted with majority). Motion fails.
Back to main motion:
Mr. Meiklejohn – this would reduce overcrowding at Lyseth and Presumpscot, students could walk to school.
Mr. Coyne - spoke to motion.
Mr. Eglinton– if recommendation is voted down will it preclude it coming up again?
Mr. Coyne – yes.
Vote on main motion: It was voted 3-6 to accept the recommendation of the 3x3 Elementary Facilities Committee regarding the Clifford School project. (Students voted with the majority) – Motion fails.
3.
Consideration and action to terminate the contract of
Deborah Breiting due to the elimination of a .7 Adult Education Teaching
position, pursuant to 1 MRSA 20-A § 13201, Chapter 503. (This was approved by the Portland School
Committee at its August 29, 2007 meeting).
Ms. Hopkins moved, seconded Ms. Thompson to terminate the contract of Deborah Breiting due to the elimination of a .7 Adult Education Teaching position, pursuant to 1 MRSA 20-A § 13201, Chapter 503
Vote: It was voted unanimously to terminate the contract of Deborah Breiting due to the elimination of a .7 Adult Education Teaching position, pursuant to 1 MRSA 20-A § 13201, Chapter 503.(Students voted with majority)
4.
Consideration and action to authorize the hiring process to begin for
the vacancies listed:
|
Positions to be approved |
|||||
|
September 19, 2007 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Position |
FTE |
Location |
Annual |
Funding |
Rationale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Studies Teacher - Grade 6-7* |
1.0 |
King |
$ 50,000.00 |
Local |
teaching six periods class size of 24, also crucial as
this year this loop will be with incoming sixth graders. |
|
Math & Literacy Specialist |
0.3 |
West |
$ 15,000.00 |
Grant |
support academic IEP goals |
|
Ed Tech III* |
1.0 |
King |
$ 21,205.80 |
Local |
required by a PET for a Mainstreamed Asperger's student |
|
Ed Tech III - SPED* |
1.0 |
Lyseth |
$ 21,205.80 |
Local |
Meet Individualized Educational Program (IEP) requirements |
|
Ed Tech III - FLS* |
1.0 |
Riverton |
$ 21,205.80 |
|
FLS Program Requirements |
|
Ed Tech III - FLS* |
.5 |
Riverton |
$ 10,602.90 |
|
FLS Program Requirements |
|
Temporary Bus Monitor* |
.25 |
District |
$ 3,675.00 |
Local |
Safety and behavioral issues for out of district treatment
transportation |
|
Temporary evening receptionist * |
.25 |
Adult Ed - West |
$ 3,500.00 |
Local |
Security and customer service for evening programs with
roughly 150 adult learners passing by. |
|
Cafeteria Worker II* |
0.5 |
Central Kitchen |
$ 8,666.00 |
Local |
vital to getting correct food to correct schools, pre-pack
meals for Peaks and Spurwink and hundreds of bag lunches weekly for field
trips |
|
Cafeteria Worker II* |
.28 |
Lincoln |
$ 4,874.63 |
Local |
new five-entrée choices which needs position to man the
different stations and serve kids |
|
Building Custodian 2* |
1.00 |
DHS |
$ 24,868.08 |
Local |
clean and maintain building |
|
Building Custodian 2* |
1.00 |
Reiche |
$ 24,868.08 |
Local |
clean and maintain building |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Local Cost |
|
|
$ 194,672.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*All
listed positions are currently in the FY 08 budget |
|
|
|
||
Ms. Gramlich moved, seconded Ms. Minnick and voted unanimously to authorize the hiring process to begin for the vacancies listed.(Students voted with majority)
Ms. Thompson moved, seconded Ms. Minnick and voted unanimously to suspend the rules (Students voted with majority)
Leave of Absence: Effective 2007-2008 School Year
Catherine Palmund .4
Reading/Reiche Personal
Helen Hurd .5 Kindergarten/Clifford Personal
Melissa
McStay .2 Social Worker/Deering Personal
Change in Degree: Effective 9/1/07
Emily Tuttle ESL/King Middle School $3,333
MA/ESL – Northern Arizona University
Election: Effective 9/1/07 Contract: Probationary 1
Marge Mehler .5 Special Ed/Cliff & Peaks Island Lane 4/Step 3 $30,558.50
MA in Humanities/Wesleyan University
Paul McGovern Music/PHS Lane 4/Step 4 $62,387.00
Doctor of Music/Indiana University
Election: Effective 9/1/07 One Year Only Contract: Probationary 1
Joanne Petkus .5 Health-PE/Casco Bay HS Lane 3/Step 2 $25,716.50
BS in Education/UMO
Vote: It was voted unanimously to approve the Personnel items as listed. (Students voted with majority)
No public comment
Mr. Meiklejohn – asked that school committee members receive all material that 3x3 comm. has had to review.
Mr. Coyne - asked that Ms. Alcorn pass the request along to Nick Mavodones.
Ms. Minnick moved, seconded Ms. Gramlich and voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:54pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Whynot-Vickers
Interim Superintendent of Schools