|
Watertown Board of Education
Regular Meeting
Minutes
Meeting Date: October 23, 2006
Meeting Time: 7:30 p.m.
Meeting Place: Watertown High Technology Center
Members Present: Ms. Mary Dzioba, Board Chairperson
Mr. Richard Mazzamaro, Board Vice Chairperson
Mr. Todd Griffin, Board Secretary
Ms. Gina Calabrese, Board Member
Ms. Mary Colangelo, Board Member
Mr. Thomas Lambert, Board Member
Ms. Joanne Pannone, Board Member
Dr. Joseph Erardi Jr., 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
Dr. Philip Pelosi, Assistant Superintendent of Schools
Ms. Kace DuPlissie, PTO Representative
Mr. William Zeman, W.H.S. Student Representative
Absent: Mr. Chris Lafferty, Board Member
Press: Jim Taylor, Sophie Bieluczyk, Town Times
Tommy Valuckas, Waterbury Republican American
Guests: Thad Hasbrouck, Pat Corvello, Marylu Lerz, Fran Palmer, Bob Guerrera, Steve Martino, John Boucher, Robert Porter, John Chipko, Peter Dzioba, Anthony Fusco, Robert LeBlanc, Joseph Millette, Kevin Killeen, Tom Linden and Charlie Beliveau
A. Convene Regular Meeting - 7:30 PM
Ms. Dzioba convened the Regular Board of Education meeting at 7:30 p.m.
B. Salute to the Flag
Ms. Dzioba led the Salute to the Flag
C. Celebration of Excellence
Ms. Dzioba: This evening we have a celebration of excellence which we will turn over to the Superintendent.
Dr. Erardi: Thank you Ms. Dzioba, I will defer at this time to Todd LoFrese our Operations and Mr. LoFrese is prepared this evening for our celebration.
Mr. LoFrese: Good evening, it gives me great honor tonight to thank several individuals of the community and some of the people that we worked with during the process of this construction project. This project started several years ago, it was well underway when I joined the district in 2003. We recently have finished it up with a track storage building in addition to an award winning track and field complex.
This award could not have been possible without the countless volunteer hours and dedication of several Public Building Committee members. Through the dedication and hard work of our architect and our contractor, Mather Construction. In fact the project itself has won an award, which I have a plaque here tonight which is going to be on permanent display in the Technology Center. This award is from the American Sports Builders Association recognizing an outstanding track facility award of excellence in design and construction.
Also this evening, the Public Committee Members as well as Town Engineer, a representative from our Architectural firm, will be receiving a Certificate of Excellence. Again on behalf of myself, the community, the Board of Education, thank you for your hard work and dedication to this project. One other point I would like to add is that the Public Building Committee has oversight of not only this project but other projects going on in Town, all with much success. Recently the Polk roof was completed and we are in the midst of a major building renovation and addition at Swift Middle School which is going very well. It is on schedule, under budget and the progress is going along very nicely and I want to thank them for that as well.
Mr. LoFrese called individuals listed below forward to receive their certificates and personal congratulations from the Board.
Mr. LoFrese: For those who would like to see the plaque I will bring it back after the celebration and it will be on display again permanently here.
The Board wishes to recognize the following people for their award winning oversight of the Mills Complex.
Robert Porter, Public Buildings Committee Chairman
Remo Ceniccola, Public Buildings Committee Vice Chairman
Karl Kuegler, Secretary, Public Buildings Committee
Brian Bellagamba, Public Buildings Committee Member
John Chipko, Public Buildings Committee Member
Peter Dzioba, Public Buildings Committee Member
Anthony Fusco, Public Buildings Committee Member
Robert LeBlanc, Public Buildings Committee Member
Roy Cavanaugh, Public Works Director
Joseph Millette
Kevin Killeen
John Orsini
Mather Corporation
M. R. Roming Associates
Dr. Erardi: We would like to take a two minute break and then reconvene the meeting.
Meeting convened at 7:35pm
Meeting reconvened at 7:38pm
D. Public Participation
John Boucher, 60 Grandview Avenue, Watertown
The students and mentors of Watertown High School First Robotics Team 237 want to thank the Board for considering the proposals that Dr. Erardi has put in front of you tonight. If accepted this marks a beginning of a new era for the team. We have always existed on the fringes of High School activities. We were accepted by most and tolerated by the rest. The program was started nine years ago by Carl Pallicott. It was his baby; it was his gift to the High School. He knew that a program like this was important and did it out of love for the program and his students. When Pal, as he wanted to be called, retired two years ago, the parents and mentors of the team kept the program going. We believe by accepting this proposal you validate Pal’s dream. We welcome becoming an official activity of Watertown High School. First Robotics is a real world engineering experience disguised as a High School Robotics competition. We believe that our student get a life lesson like no other that is offered at the High School level. Team 237 is run as a company; our students are immersed into what it takes to succeed with that company. They have a project to complete, they have to design, build, raise capital, promote and deliver their product by a certain date. When students go through our program they are changed. They have experiences that have shaped their lives. The students learn to succeed.
Team 237 has enjoyed much success over the last eight years. We have a total of three regional level wins, and we are consistently placing in the top twenty teams when competing at the international level. A better measure of our success is to look at our students. Of the seven seniors that graduated last year, all seven went onto college and five are pursuing technical or engineering degrees. The three seniors we have on the team this year are all in the top of the senior class. I urge you to accept this proposal; we believe that First Robotics will be an important addition to the Watertown High School community. Thank you.
Ms. Dzioba: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board?
No response
Ms. Dzioba: Ok, we will move on to the Student Council Representative
Report from Student Council Representative – Mr. William Zeman
Mr. Zeman: First of all thank you for the massive amount of desk space; I will do my best to fill it up.
Laughter
Ms. Dzioba: It is only temporary
Mr. Zeman: I am going to have to return that coffee maker then.
Laughter
Mr. Zeman: I would like to bring before the Board attention a tradition that has been enacted by the Senior Class at Watertown High School for many years in the past and it is continuing this year. As you are all no doubt aware, Halloween is fast approaching. While this holiday of ghosts and goblins, witches and beasts has long been the purview of the younger, many moons ago the seniors at Watertown High School decided to join in on the fun. Now every Halloween, all work ceases for about a period, while the Senior Class dress in a variety of costumes, parade through the halls in a massive festival of Halloween extravaganza. Past notable costumes have included the Mario Brothers, the Ninja Turtles, Mr. & Mrs. Kuegler and our of respect for the fact that Chris Lafferty isn’t here today, I will refrain from telling you what his costume was except to say it is beyond you wildest dreams or nightmares.
I think it is a chance for the Senior Class, considering the stress of college applications that are pretty much on our shoulders all the time, to really kick back and relax for at least a period and have a little well deserved fun. The whole school enjoys it, the staff even give out awards, for best costume, most creative costume etc, and well perhaps it is not something necessarily indicative of great higher education, it is a lot of fun for everybody and therefore I thought it was worthy of the Board’s attention.
And on another note, go Detroit; they are going to win the World Series. Thank you.
Report from PTA/PTO Liaison - Ms. Kace DuPlissie
Ms. DuPlissie: I have three schools that I am representing this evening. The first one will be Polk. They had three new activities this month, a garden club, a bulletin board club and an ornament activity. Any student wishing to join those should go to the office and get one of those little blue papers that everyone knows about.
The school store opens on the 25th with Polk mascot items and other neat pens and pencils for everyone to buy and break. The Halloween party is on the 27th, which includes a haunted house. To get into the Haunted House you need to bring one canned good for the food bank. Bag stuffing will be on the 25th. They had their book fair last week, it was a major success and mostly because they had an ice cream social on that Thursday night, everyone really liked that one. The fund raiser will be picked up on the 25th from 1-5 and on the 26th from 5-7, all orders must be picked up, that is the new rule.
At Hemingway their book fair did very well, it was two weeks ago. Their clothing sale begins today, they are doing a Thanksgiving pie sale from Roger’s Orchards that will be from now until the 7th of November. They will also be having a reward night dance or fun night which will be on November 3rd.
At Swift they tell me that the membership is up very nicely from last year. They had a clothing sale, their first fun night will be on November 17th and they participated in a Macy’s day shopping for a cause.
They only other thing I have is that two or three parents came to me and asked me to ask the Board if the computers that are no longer in use at the schools, that are being stored, can parents purchase those. I said I’d ask. Thank you.
Ms. Dzioba: We will look into that for them.
E. Budget Summary – (Information Only – No Action Required)
Ms. Dzioba: Budget summary is in the packet for all Board Members.
F. Committee Reports:
1. Advertising Committee, Todd Griffin, Chair
Mr. Griffin: There is no report this evening
2. Athletics Committee, Chris Lafferty, Chair
No Report
3. Budget Committee, Todd Griffin, Chair
Mr. Griffin: The budget committee did meet this evening, we were updated on energy costs, program priorities, volatile accounts, our overall budget planning update and meetings were set for future budget workshops. Thank you.
4. Curriculum & Instruction Committee, Gina Calabrese, Chair
Ms. Calabrese: Our meeting of the C & I committee will be scheduled in November to discuss academic programs that have been either eliminated or diminished over past school years due to budgetary constraints. Our goal be, at that meeting, to prioritize those programs and then make recommendations to the budget committee as to the order in which we feel they should be restored. We would then ask the budget committee to assess the financial impact that restoring these various programs would have on the school system so that a well informed final recommendation could be made to the full Board a budget time.
5. Facilities Committee, Rich Mazzamaro, Chair
Mr. Mazzamaro: While there is no formal report, I just wanted to bring to everybody’s attention the newest addition to the technology center. This is now a Wi-Fi hot spot. Instructions are on the back wall, there is a sign with instructions on how to log on. And I also wanted to announce that we will be having a facilities meeting on the 25th at John Trumbull Primary School Conference Room at 6pm.
6. Policy and Labor Committee, Mary Colangelo, Chair
Ms. Colangelo: No report this evening
7. Cablevision,
No report
8. PBC Representative, Rich Mazzamaro
Mr. Mazzamaro: There is no report this evening
9. Education Connection Representative, Mary Dzioba
Ms. Dzioba: No report
G. Communications – Secretary
Mr. Griffin: There are no communications this evening
H. Minutes
1. Regular Board of Education Meeting – October 10, 2006
Motion Presented by Mr. Griffin seconded by Mr. Mazzamaro to accept the Regular Board of Education Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2006.
Motion Passed
(6-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 1 Abstained)
In Favor: Ms. Calabrese, Ms. Colangelo, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Mazzamaro and Ms. Pannone
Abstained: Ms. Dzioba
I. Superintendent's Recommendations and Report
Dr. Erardi: Thank you Ms. Dzioba, I would just like to bring to the attention of the Board, the item listed as #1 appointments, Ms. Brooks was unable to accept the position due to some personal issues so that is not an appointment, that position remains open and we will update the Board on that position at our next meeting.
1. Appointments – (Information Only – No Action Required)
a. Ms. Sammi Brooks to the position of One to One Special Ed Program Paraprofessional at Polk School starting October 16, 2006 for 22.0 hours paid per week at an hourly rate of $11.82.
I would also like to bring to the attention to the Board, which is not part of my report, but I am very impressed with civic responsibility starting as young as first grade and I would like to recognize Madison Griffin who is here this evening representing first grade reporting on our meeting.
Laughter
We will continue with our NEASC update, the update that the Board and many members of our school community and certainly our parents of our school aged children have been waiting for. Board members received the response from the New England Association of School and Colleges in their Friday informational packet. Mr. Hasbrouck the High School principal is here this evening to share with the Board and the community the update of the NEASC one year report.
Mr. Hasbrouck: Thank you Dr. Erardi, in the spirit of Mr. Zeman, I could say “We got a letter. Thank you.”
Laughter
Mr. Hasbrouck: Not often in public, I get a little zing at you Will, I am going to take this opportunity.
As you are well aware in June, this Board of Education approved the letter which I submitted to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Public Secondary Schools Commission. I was received by them on July 1. At the October 1st and 2nd meeting of that Public Secondary School Commission, they reviewed the report that I had submitted and were pleased with the progress made to date. It is no surprise to anyone here that they reason that that letter was able to report the kinds of things that we were able to do last year and moving forward into this school year was because of the passage of the school budget. It enabled us to add three staff members; it enabled us to upgrade sorely needed technology facelift with new computers in our labs. As well it allowed the allocation of funding for an architectural and engineering study which is ongoing relative to our facilities. The addition of custodial staff and immediate remediation of a number of safety concerns that were identified in the report, in the shower area, in the tennis court, the parking lot areas, etc. The additional funding in the media center has allowed us to purchase a number of new materials and they are beginning to work into the circulation so that when students and staff come to the use the facility it provides more resources for research. A number of the curriculum initiatives that we had undergone as well were well received.
What the commission is looking for is an ongoing and sustained, continuing improvement, particularly in the area of funding and in the upgrading of the facilities. Therefore they will be looking for and asking us to focus on, as part of our October 1, 2007 report, the two year report, is to provide a summary of the architectural and engineering study and a progress report on the long range plans for the resolution of all the facility concerns that were itemized in the report and that really was the bulk of the concerns. As you recall the visiting committee report and the initial report coming from NEASC was very complementary of the curriculum and the dedication and hard work of the staff and our students, but recognized the aging facility and the need for the fiscal support. That sustained effort, implied in the letter is that that continuation of sustained efforts could lead us in October 2007, upon review of that report, to have the removal of warning status and return to the unquestioned accreditation status. I would remind the Board that while there is a warning in place relative to those items that I identified earlier, Watertown High School is an accredited High School. I thank you, are there any questions?
No response
Dr. Erardi: Just a few additional comments, after this evening, a copy of the letter, we do have additional copies for the audience and the press tonight, copies of the letters will be dispensed to the Town Library and to the Town Hall as per NEASC direction.
2. NEASC Update – (Information Only – No Action Required)
Mr. Thad Hasbrouck, Principal of Watertown High School, will give the Board an update on a letter received from the New England Association of Schools & Colleges, Inc. (NEASC) and the continuation of the school’s accreditation.
Dr. Erardi: The last item on the Superintendent’s report is the annual report of Standardized Testing and as many Board Members know, it has historically been a spring, early summer report, with the change of the CMT test from the fall to the spring, we are here this evening through Dr. Pelosi’s office with an extensive report which will recapture our grades 3-10 scores on CMT, CAPT and additional items that we will bring to the Board on an annual basis.
Dr. Pelosi: As you know the testing report is being given earlier as Dr. Erardi said because the tests were given in Grades 3-8 the Mastery Test, inclusive, last March and the results were reported in late August. We weren’t allowed to release anything; we were what they call embargoed until recently so this is really the earliest we could give the report. We also have the results of the Otis Lennon School Ability which was taken by our students, which is a measure of, kind of like an I.Q. test, a power test, abstract reasoning and verbal ability. The Connecticut Academic Performance Test was administered in grade 10, also and traditionally in March. So the report is more comprehensive this year, it includes more grade levels.
Before I begin I would like to thank our testing coordinators, Pat Corvello, Principal of Judson School, for coordinating the tests and her input in the report and also Matthew Geary, Assistant Principal at the High School for his input and coordination of the CAPT test in Grade 10. Thank you for that hard work.
Dr. Pelosi presented a power point presentation of Test Results. (Attachment A)
Dr. Pelosi: I have passed out an overview of the power point presentation which is a shortened version of the booklet you received. The Otis Lennon test is administered as we were saying in grades 2, 4, 7 & 9. The OLSAT as it is called is a power measure of abstract reasoning ability and reasoning ability. The concept of ability that underlies the OLSAT is that it is general intellectual ability, similar to IQ. This ability is not learned or taught. It is not a test we teach to.
The results reported in grades 2 show that the students scored, if you look at every one, 102.3 means they scored in the mid-average range of the stanines would be 1-9, so they are right in the middle at the 5th stanine. It is an average scoring group of children. Grade four 96.6 is still considered mid-average, grade 104.3, that is considered high-average and grade nine 102.9, mid-average. So no matter what grade we are looking at, at the span of 2, 4, 7, and 9, we do notice that the students are between mid-average and high-average range of ability. So this would also reflect on how they do on the CMTs and the CAPT test.
This year are we said the test was administered in March and it was the fourth generation, it was a new test, so when we compare this years results to last years, we have to remember that it is an updated version of the test and in some cases it was strengthened and more difficult but similar and we were not given sample items until after the test was administered. We really didn’t have a peak as to what it would look like until after the test was administered and teachers are reviewing those things now. As I said grades three through eight inclusive Spring 2006.
The areas tested are mathematics, reading and writing in grades 3-8. The results indicate, the goal level, this is not the No Child Left Behind Level, but the goal level shows that Watertown versus the state, show slight differences in math and reading in grade 3 with an increase, many more in writing in grade three. This will permeate throughout all grade levels. Math is down in grade 4, again it is the first time the test is given, there are items on there that the children were not exposed to. In reading up a little bit and writing again above the state average. In grade five, similar only the reading moves up, and the writing moves up. And you will see as we move through the grade levels the reading and the writing should increase.
The math in grade six is down. These are goals, this is band 4 and 5, the reading slightly above and the writing above. The sixth grade math test is probably the most difficult test that is given, the item levels of difficulty are the highest levels of difficulty. It is not an excuse, it is something that we are addressing but it is something we should also take notice of. In grade 7, we are above in all three areas; again the writing continues to be an area where we are well above, in grade 6, grade 7. And in grade 8 we are above in all areas including the reading at 14% scoring, 14% represents actually, in other words, 80.7% of the students in reading scored above, met the goal in grades 4 & 5 in the state 66.7% so we are 14% more of our students scored at the goal level, which are lofty levels, for writing, 15.7%. In the No Child Left Behind, they actually go down to a band below the state goal but I thought it was important report the state goal to you at this point.
Here is the basic level, what they consider here, these would be students who need intervention, these are students who do not however, we take it a little bit more seriously. If you look at the 55% grade 3 in math scored at the goal but 89% scored at a level where they do not need intervention however, we have targeted band 2 and we are intervening in those areas. So you can see they scored well here, our area of focus is the reading in grade 3, see how things change when you look at different bands. (Dr. Pelosi referred to slide7)
Grade 3 we are looking at implementing a new techniques and new initiatives there to raise that and expose the kids to what is on the test. The same happened in grades 4 & 5.
In grade 6 mathematics is fine at the basic level where we are not satisfied with the reading level and in grade 7 & 8 the students did relatively well. Now remember included in the testing we have over 99% of the students tested so all of the special education students, all the remedial students, students in need of remediation, our English language learners, 1% or less were given what is called a checklist and their scores would not be reflected here but over 99% of the school population is in here. So when we look at this we have to consider that we have students who have specific needs and who have specific special education needs, remedial needs, and language barriers, who if you walked into the school and you can’t speak a word of English you have to be given this test. That is the reality of the situation, that is the Federal Law, so there is nothing we can do about this. As you know the test used to be given in grades 4, 6, and 8 but because of the legislation, it is 3-8 inclusive. So we are working on this and we will get to that part.
Here we are comparing last year (slide 9) which I thought, we have always done a comparison, it is really not as aligned this year because as you can see last year grade 3 was not tested as we said. These are the results here but it is not applicable. Grade 4, it is a different test, so we are actually comparing different tests here. In grade 5, that was not tested, grade 6 again different tests. But if you take a look you notice things like this, why is it so different, are there more open ended items, are students asked to explain more of the reasoning they have gone through as they’ve under taken the test and so on. In grade 7 again, not tested last year so no comparison available, and in grade 8 slightly above in math, slightly above in writing and in reading slightly below. The comparison, for what it is worth, I did not want to not do that because we have always done it. I thought is was something that it could be used as a conversation piece in curriculum and instruction committee when we review the plans of each school at that level, to see what we are doing to address our needs at the goal level.
Here we are looking at (slide 11) the longitudinal study, and this is something we start, if we track backwards, these are the present 8th graders; in the black is Watertown, the block. That would be Watertown students scoring 81% of the kids met the goal level in reading when they were in the same group in 6th grade they were at 63%. So as they moved from 6th, had the instruction in 6th, 7th and 8th, they actually went up more than 18% passed it. In 4th grade it was 62, so from 4th to 6th we had 62 then 63, 1% more, and then 18% more. The red is the state and you can see there is overlapping there, 58, 62 and 62. So we have increased significantly as the students move through our program and get to the 8th grade level. We have a wider gap between the state level and our goal level, which is significant.
In the mathematics area we are pretty flat as you can see we mirrored the state goal here and in fact going from 4th to 6th we are down a little and then back up to 61 slightly above the 58% in grade 8. Again we have to keep in mind that we are at the goal level. In writing we are above in every grade and we continue to increase, as the kids went through from 4th to 6th and 6th to 8th. We have an increase in the percentage of the students achieving goal, it is 78, the last line, the last number.
Any questions on this? There is much more information that could be…we looked at it several different ways but I thought this made sense in terms of looking specifically at goal level. We will talk about No Child Left Behind at the end.
The 10th grade test, the CAPT test, you have seen samples of the CMT items and you know how difficult they are and the CAPT items in grade 10 and what is expected of students. You have seen specific examples of the mathematics portion, reading across the disciplines based on response to literature, and reading for information, writing across the disciplines to interdisciplinary writing tests and editing and revising where they have to go back into authentic text and determine what would be a better fit which sentence is better, etc. And science which tests life, physical and earth in a lab setting. We will be adding science in 2008, in one year to grades 5 and 8, it is only tested in grade 10 for this last past year and next year but in one year from now we will have it 5th and 8th. We will have boxes of sand received and things like that.
The score here (Slide 13), percent above intervention, you can see Watertown outscored the state and had 95% of our students scored well above the intervention level, 98% in science, 95% in reading across the disciplines and 94%, slightly below the state average in writing across the disciplines. Here the goal level (slide 14), the math moved, the state was 46%, we are at 39%. Science 44, 44, reading 46, 43, writing, 52, 43. At the goal level, at the grade 10 level, there was a level of disappointment in terms of the students scoring at those levels. So the CAPT plans are being developed however, more students moved into level 3 which helped us meet the No Child Left Behind Goal which you will see.
Here (Slide 15), at or above proficiency, now here we are talking about the No Child Left Behind, as you can see the state has 77.9, Watertown has 82.2 so from that 39, in the next strand, you had the remainder that brings us up to 82.2 and that meets the Federal requirement of 69%. So they expected 69, we have 82.2, a difference of 13.2% more. Reading across the disciplines the State had 79.8, we had 86% of our students meeting the Federal goal which was 72% was expected so we are above by 14% more student achieving the proficiency goal and above. Writing across the disciplines, 81.9, we had 83, the goal is 70 or an improvement from the prior year, we had 13% exceed that Federal goal. In terms of the No Child Left Behind requirements we did well, in terms of the State goal we are focusing upon that because it is, there was a drop in that. But here it is pretty similar to last years.
The tests are also disaggregated and what that means is simply exactly what disaggregated means, they are broken down into these subgroups (Slide 16) and if you have 40 students or more in any one of these subgroups then they are reported out and you have to meet the goal on all of them. So again we were talking before, limited English proficient, disabled, our special ed population and so on. The whole school could make No Child meet the goal but if we had one subgroup that doesn’t it is considered a targeted school because you have a pocket of students in that school that contains forty or more, and they did not meet the goal, but the entire school could have made it. We will see what those results are now.
Watertown High School met the annual yearly progress requirements in all groups in all subjects. Swift Middle School met the annual yearly requirements as an entire school. The special education subgroup, they had the largest, 91 students, made substantial progress from the year before so they were deemed as met AYP. So that school, both with the subgroup and as an entire school met annual yearly progress and we are looking at what is happening there. The students are older, they have had more exposure to material, but also there has been more co-teaching there and a model that we are implementing at other schools as well, so Swift is fine. Judson Elementary met the AYP standards, the Federal standards, as a whole school but did the special ed subgroup, 53 students, did not meet the requirements. Which means they fell below those Federal standards were there which with 53 students, it is reported out. They did not meet it, it is considered a targeted school and the principal is working diligently with coordinators and with me and Dr. Erardi to determine what we must do there. With Mrs. Hackett and Mary Reola to determine what we have to do to have them at least make substantial progress.
Polk Elementary met the annual yearly progress as an entire school but again the special ed subgroup of 48 students did not meet the Federal target. That is why big headlines in the newspaper you saw, Judson and Polk targeted. What it actually meant was that special education subgroup did not meet the target or did not make progress, substantial progress from the year before. Again we have to be very careful with special ed students because the nature of the disability is not something that is disclosed. We can only put one percent on the check list and it is just situational year to year, we don’t know what type of students we will be receiving and what the disabilities are. But again we must expose the students, we are doing the co-teaching.
As a result what does all this mean? As a result of all of this and analyzing the testing in many different ways, administrators, staff, coordinators analyze the data and target specific areas of not only our weakness but also our strengths to help us overcome those weaknesses. Student work is also reviewed, not just test results, a number but also the actual work the kids are doing, how are they writing, how did they explain it, can they explain it, are we giving them enough exposure? We are using our structured protocol days built into our calendar to discuss the actual student work and to bring to the table different ideas of “gee these students did really well, what did we do instructionally, how did we instruct in the classroom, or this group did not, how did we instruct them, maybe there needs to be a change in the instructional practice” and that is what we are looking at. Vertical teams meet, K-12 throughout the district to reassess the curriculum, maybe the curriculum needs to be tweaked in certain areas or beefed up in other areas. Meetings have been held to develop a school wide CMT and CAPT improvement plan for each school that will be presented tomorrow at Dr. Erardi’s administrative council. Each school principal will present and improvement plan specifically related to these test results and to instructional practices. Professional development committee is involved that will recommend workshops and action research study groups to address the strengths and weaknesses of the students. Professional development is offered as a result of this assessment. Administrators will ensure that classroom observations and the delivery of instruction indicates that we are actually, teachers are actually exposing the students, teaching the students in a way to improve student scores as well as improve the delivery of instruction, the way that they teach. And this is just the beginning….
Are there any questions?
Ms. Dzioba: We will be updated on the (inaudible)?
Dr. Pelosi: Yes, the next step will be to go to Curriculum and Instruction with the Principal’s improvement plan and then to bring a status report back as often as the Board would like.
Dr. Erardi: That concludes the Superintendent’s report, thank you.
3. 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 Connecticut Mastery Test (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, the Otis-Lennon Test Grades 2, 4, 7, 9, and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (Grade 10).
J. Report from the Chairman
Ms. Dzioba: I would just like to say that last Wednesday myself and Mr. Lambert and Ms. Colangelo met with the PTA/PTOs at their monthly meeting to discuss school safety. There were many administrators there and some good questions and discussions. It is an ongoing project, it is the ultimate goal to ensure safety in our schools, it is something the Board takes very seriously and it will be worked on throughout the year and in the future. I would like to move on to action items.
K. Action Items – Adoption of Items to be Approved by Consent
a. Consideration of the Approval of One Year Funding – Second Reading
Robotics’ Advisor (W.H.S.) - $1,607.00
Lego Program (Swift) - $ 516.24
Presented to the Board for the first reading at its meeting on October 10, 2006 was the recommendation that the Board of Education, through the funding stream of their advertising line item, supports the expenditure of funds for the Swift Lego League and the stipend for the Watertown High School Robotics’ Advisor position. It is further presented for the second reading that the Board directs the superintendent to draft an agreement with the Robotics’ parent group that clearly illustrates that the Board’s only financial commitment to the program is that of the stipend for the position and that the Watertown High School administration has full oversight for the hiring of the advisor and the administration of the team.
It is recommended that the Board of Education, through the funding stream of their advertising line item, supports the expenditure of funds for the Swift Lego League ($516.24) and the stipend for the Watertown High School Robotics’ Advisor position. ($1,607.00)
It is also recommended that the Board directs the superintendent to draft an agreement with the Robotics’ parent group that clearly illustrates that the Board’s only financial commitment to the program is that of the stipend for the position and that the Watertown High School administration has full oversight for the hiring of the advisor and the administration of the team.
Motion presented by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Colangelo to approve, through the funding stream of their advertising line item, supports the expenditure of funds for the Swift Lego League ($516.24) and the stipend for the Watertown High School Robotics’ Advisor position. ($1,607.00)
It is also recommended that the Board directs the superintendent to draft an agreement with the Robotics’ parent group that clearly illustrates that the Board’s only financial commitment to the program is that of the stipend for the position and that the Watertown High School administration has full oversight for the hiring of the advisor and the administration of the team.
Discussion:
Ms. Dzioba: I would just like to say that the fact that Mr. Pallicott retired two years ago and that a parents group has been able to keep this program going says a lot for the people that have worked so hard for this project and I would like to congratulate them, their hard work and their dedication. It is a wonderful group and I am glad to see that it will be hopefully continued with a stipend tonight. Any other comments?
No response
Motion Passed Unanimously
(7-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained)
Mr. Mazzamaro left the room at 8:21 pm
b. Consideration of the Approval of Medical Leave of Absence
Ms. Judith Moeller, Remedial Reading Teacher at John Trumbull Primary School, requests a medical leave of absence commencing November 6, 2006 with an anticipated date of return of January 2, 2007, with use of accumulated sick time.
It is recommended that the Board approve of a medical leave of absence commencing November 6, 2006 with an anticipated date of return of January 2, 2007, with use of accumulated sick time and a medical doctor’s note to return.
Motion presented by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Pannone to approve of a medical leave of absence commencing November 6, 2006 with an anticipated date of return of January 2, 2007, with use of accumulated sick time and a medical doctor’s note to return.
Discussion: None
Motion Passed
(6-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained, 1-Absent for vote)
In Favor: Ms. Calabrese, Ms. Colangelo, Ms. Dzioba, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Lambert and Ms. Pannone
Absent: Mr. Mazzamaro
c. Consideration of the Approval of the Disposal of Obsolete Equipment
Mr. Thad Hasbrouck, Principal at Watertown High School, requests permission to dispose of books and maps that are outdated and in poor condition located in the bookroom at Watertown High School.
It is recommended that the Board approve of the disposal of books and maps that are outdated and in poor condition located in the bookroom at Watertown High School according to Board of Education policy.
Motion presented by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Colangelo to approve of the disposal of books and maps that are outdated and in poor condition located in the bookroom at Watertown High School according to Board of Education policy.
Discussion: None
Motion Passed
(6-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained, 1-Absent for vote)
In Favor: Ms. Calabrese, Ms. Colangelo, Ms. Dzioba, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Lambert and Ms. Pannone
Absent: Mr. Mazzamaro
L. Future Agenda Items and Board Members’ Comments
None
M. Public Participation
Mr. Mazzamaro reentered the room at 8:24 pm
Bob Guerrera, 117 Adams Road, Watertown
It has been I think a month since we have been before you, we let it lie, hoping that we would see it on the agenda and we would get people here again to start pushing the turf on the field. I just have a couple questions and while I ask the questions I would like you to take a look at these pictures.
Mr. Guerrera distributed pictures for the Board to review
These pictures were taken today or our complex and Wolcott’s Complex. Our complex as you see in the pictures has been used for a month and a half if I am not mistaken. If any of you had come to the game on Saturday night to watch our number 1 girls play soccer you would have been appalled by the condition of that field. The thing is I can’t understand why it isn’t on the agenda. Can anybody give me an answer?
Ms. Dzioba: We are waiting for a directive from the Town Council but that will be addressed to you in a letter. All your questions will be answered in a letter.
Mr. Guerrera: Ok, because the other thing is, I know the Town Council said they would give us an answer by the end of November. If I am not mistaken the only thing they are looking for from the Board of Ed is if they put it to a Town meeting and the people of the Town decide to turf the Mills Complex, they would need your permission to say it is ok to turf the Mills Complex, correct?
Ms. Dzioba: We will look into that and get back to you in a letter.
Mr. Guerrera: I think, I really want you to look at those pictures, I think they speak for themselves. You have a world class track as you said, so let’s make the field a world class field. Our coaches were standing in mud that is just unbelievable and it is nobodies fault. It is just every time somebody had a game there, it rained, it either rained that day or two days before but the field is beat up. It really is and now we have an opportunity to never go through this again and it doesn’t cost us anything. All we are looking for is that hopefully this keeps moving. I have talked to the Athletic Director of Wolcott, Joe Monroe, he is willing to come out here and answer any questions, put on a power point presentation on how Wolcott went, if you have any questions at all. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, the only thing they need is, yes if the Town people decide to turf the field, we’ll let them. And I don’t see what the big deal is, it is up to the Town people if we are going to do it or not. Thank you.
Steve Martino, 105 Beech Avenue, Watertown
I just want to reiterate what Bobby has just said, that we are really concerned, we brought a lot of good people before yourselves and before the Town Council. Coaches, everybody that we run into, everybody is for this, I have yet to be confronted by somebody who said that this would be a bad idea. I sat back there when Bobby was up talking and to be honest with you I don’t see that much interest and I just hope that you guys understand that how passionate a good majority of our town is about this. They could really send us in a back loop if we decide against this. The field is a mess out there, I am telling you and it is nobodies fault and it is no disrespect to anybody and I’ll tell you, we made a bad decision maybe a few years ago and we need to correct that decisions and just stop trying to find reasons not to do it. We hear little rumors about this cost and that cost, it is all hogwash. We really, basically for $567,000 or there so we will have a turf field. Anything that could come up, throw right in there, it is paid for with the $560,000, I mean if you want layman’s terms, there they are. You really need to consider this, me and Bobby are here for you people, we are on your side, this is our Town, this is our School, we need to do the right thing here. I don’t even think you all understand what a bad decision it is going to be when we don’t turf that field. Because if we don’t use this money, we will never get money from our Town again. They are never going to say here is $600,000 go do the field, we need this grant money, it is not hurting the certain tax payers that are against everything we try to do good in this Town sometimes. So we have the money here, we don’t have to ask them for it, and we can probably get this through and turf that field and I just hope you all understand what an important decision this is that you guys have to make because you are really going to set us back and you are going to kill the moral of this town, I am telling you. It is going to hurt the school system, it is going to hurt the people, it is going to hurt a lot of decisions of people coming up through the Junior High planning on where they are going. We’ve got great soccer teams down there at Junior High, we got great everything, all of our sports…we got great athletes in this Town and it is a shame to loose them but we are going to loose them because we can’t even compare to what these other Towns are going to do in a couple of years. I am telling you that everybody is going to have the turf and we are not going to have it and we are going to have no way of getting it unless me and Bobby raise it ourselves. The Town is not going to give us the money, we have the money there, we need to use that money for turf.
One more thing and I know I am over the three minutes and I apologize. If you guys were passionate about wanting that money to turf that field, the Town Council would have already given it to you and I can honestly say that. So it is up to you, you’re the ones that are going to have to answer to a lot of coaches, a lot of players and a lot of people of this town if this things falls through some how because we are spinning our wheels. You are the ones, if you guys showed passion of wanting to help your school system, you would have that money I can honestly say that, let them say no to you. That is all I can say, thank you.
Fran Palmer, 220 Middlebury Road, Watertown
I am speaking tonight as President of Watertown Music Booster Association. You mentioned that you are going to be considering your priorities for reinstatement of programs. I would like to mention or put in your mind that the music department has lost two teachers over the past few years, you eliminated the elementary band this year. Memorial Day is going to be a little shorter and a little bit quieter without the elementary band there. It was stated that it was hopefully a one year dismissal and just to put it in your minds to try and get the band position reinstated so that program can come back in the school system. Thank you.
N. Executive Session
Litigation Matter
Motion presented by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Colangelo to enter into Executive Session with Non-affiliated employees, legal counsel and all Board Members listed as present.
Motion Passed Unanimously
(7-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained)
Executive Session convened at 8:31 p.m.
Executive Session ended at 9:10 p.m.
O. Adjournment
Motion presented by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Ms. Colangelo to adjourn the Regular Board of Education Meeting of October 23, 2006.
Motion Passed Unanimously
(7-In Favor, 0-Opposed, 0-Abstained)
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by
Todd Griffin, Board Secretary
Bonnie Goulet, Board Clerk
|