[Lungo-Koehn]: Are we ready? Recording. Sounds great. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. Our third regular meeting of the Medford School Committee, February 10th, 2025. At 6 p.m. we'll come to order. Please be advised there will be a meeting of the Medford School Committee and the Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, Medford City Hall, and via remote participation. This meeting is being recorded. It can be viewed on Medford Public Schools' YouTube channel or through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, Comcast 9, 8, or 22, and Verizon 43, 45, or 47. can log or call in by using the following Zoom link. Meeting ID is 960-8065-7355. Member Ruseau, if you could please call the roll.
[Ruseau]: Member Branley. Yes. Member Graham. Member Intoppa. Here. Member Olapade. Here. Member Reinfeld. Present. Member Ruseau, present. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Lungo-Koehn]: 7 present, 0 absent. Do we have any student representatives on the call if we know? Not yet. If we may all please rise to salute the flag.
[SPEAKER_09]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Lungo-Koehn]: We have number three, good of the order. Hearing and seeing none, we do have a consent agenda. It's approval of bills and payrolls, approval of capital purchases, approval of grants, approval of donations. Medford High School Orchestra Musical Instruments, $1,000 donation by Medford residents. And National Speakers Association Conference, $177 donation by Elizabeth Gomez for three speech and language pathologists. Approval of field trips, winter guard trip to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania for national competition, and then the approval of meeting minutes, which is a regular meeting, January 27th, 2025. Is there a motion for approval of the consent agenda? Member Graham?
[Graham]: Motion to sever the field trip approval for the winter guard.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to sever by Member Graham, seconded by Member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Field trips has been severed. Is there a motion for approval for the rest?
[SPEAKER_09]: Motion to approve.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Lopate, seconded by? Second. Member Intoppa, all those in favor? Aye. All those, do you want a roll call? Roll call, Member Ruseau. Thank you.
[Ruseau]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Graham]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. memo is seeking approval for the out-of-state field trip. Is that correct? But it is not making an ask for funding. Is that true?
[Lungo-Koehn]: That seems correct from what's on the agenda. OK. That's all I needed to know. Motion to approve. OK, motion for approval by Member Graham, seconded by, OK, so this is just for the actual field trip allowance by Member Graham, seconded by Member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. We do not have any reports of subcommittees. We have report of our superintendent, proposal to update MHS graduation and competency determination requirements. So I'll turn it over to you, Dr. Galussi, our interim superintendent.
[Galusi]: Thank you very much. I'm just going to give one minute for, Dr. Cushing's gonna help me by displaying the slide deck. And I'm just going to start by giving a little bit of historical background. So on the agenda for this evening, I'm going to provide you with the historical context about why this proposal is coming forward to this body. We're going to talk a little bit about what question two on the ballot was in November, the proposal for updating the statute language for Medford Public Schools, Medford High School. an update on MCAS participation and some further considerations regarding this updated policy proposal. So, Dr. Cushing, could you please just advance to slide three? Thank you. Much appreciated. So, just as a brief To frame this a little bit, Massachusetts Education Reform Law of 1993 aimed to increase accountability across the state. And it did so by establishing a competency determination standard for all high school students to achieve in order to get their graduation from high school. That local control as part of this ed reform was given to school committees as a way to vet and adhere to this policy and deem the graduation appropriate for high school students. Beginning in the class of 2003, so 10 years later, MCAS served as the way to meet this competency determination and be the deciding factor in how students were graduating. So at that point you had, students had to meet for grade 10 MCAS, and they also had to meet local graduation requirements. So since then, there have been some updates to that, and between 2003 and 2009, grade 10 ELA and math scores needed to be needs improvement or higher. Between the years of 2010 and 2020, they increased, they just upped the threshold so that they gave a score. The scaled score had to be 240 for ELA in math and 220 or above in science. Most recently in 2021, coming out of COVID, up until recently, which was last year, the Department of Education moved the threshold again, which is also why we saw a little bit of a dip in scores. And so for those three core subtests, ELA, mathematics, and biology for science, students had to be meeting or exceeding. So no longer was the scaled score or the needs improvement part of that. And then as we know, a motion was put on ballot question two for the November election. And if we advance please Dr. Cushing to the next slide, it passed. So 59% of the Commonwealth of voters agreed that the MCAS should not serve as the competency determination for high school graduation requirement. What I have here is just a screenshot to show you how the vote turned out, and then the old language of the statute with the current new language of the statute. So what you can see here is they've crossed out that it's the assessment tool, which was MCAS, and they've added the new statute, which is saying that in lieu of the competency determination through the MCAS test, it has to be through the coursework of those aligned classes. So if we, let me just, before we advance to the next slide, what that really means is that they still want the competency determination to meet the needs of state frameworks for Common Core in Massachusetts for grade 10, in ELA, in math, which they say should be algebra and geometry, which we will talk about, and in science, algebra, excuse me, biology or chemistry. All right, so now we go to the next slide. And once this passed, and there was a whole lot of work now for districts to do, we had many meetings with a large group of people at the high school level. And I do wanna say special thanks to those people for meeting continuously and doing not only work during these meetings, but also a lot of work outside of the meetings and with their respective departments because educators were brought into these conversations, so I do want to thank Vilma Bobo, David Blauck, Joan Bowen, Marta Cabral, Nicole Chiesa, Rocco Sieri, Kim Clinton, Chad Fallon, Lori Hodgkin, Faiza Khan, Stacey Shulman, Paul Texera, and their respective educators. And so we are going to present a proposal to you that we feel aligns with our instructional vision and the requirements of the newly passed mandate. So the following slides are going to kind of talk you through how we're updating and we'll meet the needs of the new mandate. So the next slide shows you currently right now what our local high school graduation requirements are along with the previous competency determination of the MCAS. So you'll see in order for students to graduate from Medford High School, they have to have four years of English, four years of wellness, four years of math, including geometry and algebra, two, three years of a science, including biology and chemistry, three years of social studies, two years of foreign language, one course in fine arts, four years of community service, which accounts to 60 hours, roughly about 15 per year, and then the two requirements for MCAS. That's what it is currently. Are there any questions on this? Okay. If we advance to the next slide, and I have this in two pieces, We're not looking right now to wholly change our local graduation requirements, but we do need some updated language because some of that language does not reflect current practice. So English remains at four years, take and pass. Mathematics also continues at four years, take and pass, but we now have shifted to the integrated pathways. So instead of, geometry and algebra, it now reflects integrated math one, two, and three. Continued with four years of wellness. Continue with three years of science. Continue with social studies, but we also have a new department of education requirement that we're adding in here, which includes the student-led civics project. Making sure we've updated the word world language instead of referring to it as foreign language. The requirement of, or the difference for CTE remains right now. Arts remains as one course to take and pass. And then there's just a description of community service and the benefits of community service. But the hours of, the total hours of 60, roughly about 15 per year remain the same. Before I move on to the competency determination, are there any questions about these brief language changes? Okay.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Itapa? Member Itapa?
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah.
[Intoppa]: This may just be a small, so in the phrasing, is it, and you said roughly, but I just want confirmation. It's not, it's 60 cumulative, so there could be like 20, okay. Yes. Just wanted to make sure, because some people may have questions. Thank you.
[Galusi]: Okay, next slide please. All right, so the competency determination, we wanna make sure that we have the language of the statute in there. So that's just the language that's at the top so that it's very framed, what the new statute states, where it is coming from, and how Medford is going to address the competency determination. So if students have previously earned this through the taking and passing of MCAS or the grant of an appeal process, then they have already earned their competency determination. So for students that have not or moving forward, we are saying that students would earn that through the successful completion of grade nine and 10 English language arts coursework as aligned with Massachusetts curriculum frameworks. that they would take, students would complete and pass grades nine and 10 math coursework, integrated math one and integrated math two aligned with the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, the successful completion of high school biology coursework aligned with the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks and participation in MCAS, ELA, math and biology tests as assigned. And for students that receive a not meeting expectation score, that they would just participate in at least one retest. I'm gonna kind of explain that a little bit more as we move on. So the next slide, just so we're understanding the impact that this has for our current class of 2025. As previously stated, if they've already earned their competency determination by taking and passing, the grade 10 ELA math and biology, they're all set. They've met that competency determination and provided that they've met the local graduation requirements, they will be all set to graduate. For students who have not earned their competency determination currently, then we have already been going back to do some of that vetting to see if they have successfully taken and completed those courses before. And we are, the conversation and the communication with the caregivers is ongoing for that very small group of students that we've already identified. The next slide, because I think it's very important just to kind of frame, is that under ed reform law, which started as No Child Left Behind, then moved to Race to the Top, and is now still ESSA, Every Student Succeeds Act, there's compliance that is put from the federal level onto the states to make sure that we are adhering to Common Core to local frameworks. And so the participation in MCAS has always been a requirement and continues to be a requirement for us. And participation is not optional. Students should be taking the MCAS. And so we have been informed that it is still going to be an accountability measure for local districts. So now this mandate has removed MCAS being used as a graduation requirement for competency determination, but it is still going to be used to assess and put a rating to districts in terms of their accountability. It also is still going to be used as a qualifier for some scholarships, as well as the seal of biliteracy. So there are some important factors in terms of our students' participation. We have been having some internal conversations and continue to have internal conversations around what that will look like in terms of students knowing that it is no longer a graduation requirement, but it is also an important assessment for them to take. So I just felt it was important, it is for these reasons that we're having the participation be part of the competency determination. So before I get to last slide are there are there questions around this?
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Brinley.
[Branley]: So this year I understand the situation with the class of 2025 and then MCAS participation student participation is required so every student in the district is taking the test. That hasn't changed. Participation is required. The reason that I say that is because I think you see that a lot on social media circulating that MCATs are not required. Oh, just write a letter. They don't have to take it. And I don't think that that's fair to the district. I mean, you know, I also understand the need of a child. So like, how do we- That's the clarifier.
[Galusi]: So it's not going to necessarily, the onus necessarily won't be on the student, but it will impact the district.
[Branley]: Okay.
[Galusi]: So it's not, MCAS is not going to, unless there are students that are going for scholarships that are going to be tied to the performance on the MCAS, it's not going to hold student back. Okay. How they do on the MCAS won't necessarily hold them back, but it will impact the district.
[Branley]: Yeah. And I think that there's maybe this, you know, notion that, It's not a requirement. It is a requirement for every student. So I just think that that should be known to the public that it's a requirement for the student, but the student won't be held back from graduation or some of the things that are necessary. for the student, but also it's necessary for the district. And I think maybe if people feel like they don't have to put so much pressure on their child or their child doesn't have to feel so much pressure, I think that's just good to get out there because, you know, it's more our rating versus a student's rating overall. So I just want to make sure that that's true. That part is true. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. My understanding, according to the former secretary of the Department of Education, is that we are required to give the student the test. That is not the same as the student is required to take the test. We are required to give students food. If they don't eat it, that's their choice. So I do think it's important that that distinction is made, that bringing the kids in and saying, here's the computer, take the test, is not the same as saying, you have to do this. And I think that's sort of where the no-test movement comes from, is that we are required to give it to them. It does not mean they're required to take it. And so we don't have a policy today on this. at elementary school in particular, this has been an issue. You know, frankly, our computer science curriculum with air quotes is really just to make sure they can take MCAS because they didn't have computer skills in time to be able to do MCAS. But they shouldn't be having computer skills by that age because American Pediatric Association says that's not developmentally appropriate. So there's sort of this horrible cycle that we're on, where we're purposefully giving kids an education in something they should not have, because we're mandated to put them in front of these computers to do something. So it's all a bit of a mess. But I think it's important to understand that the requirement is that we give it to them. It is not required that the kid complete the test or take the test. And obviously, most kids want to perform. Most kids come to school and want to do well. So most kids are going to take it, of course. And I'm not suggesting they shouldn't. But to say that they must take the test is a different thing. It's like, you can't give kids their grades if they don't do the work in school. So they must do the work. But this is not that.
[Galusi]: So the only thing I would say to that, there's a couple of things, and I hope I don't lose track of what I was going to say. One, I think this is a very fluid situation. So the governor has just created a committee to continue to vet out what this mandate has now done to districts because it has created a lot of conversation for all of these nuanced pieces. I will say, especially at the high school level, but the population of Medford is also fluid and can be transient at times. And so the MCAS does allow in some situations the opportunity for students that may be moving in here that that that that helps to kind of give them some of that level of the competency determination. For us, I hear what you are saying, but right now, we are beholden to the mandate, which only removed the local graduation requirement. And so we still are going to have our accountability rating tied to this test. Now, maybe this commission through the governor's office or some of the continued work that the Department of Ed is going to do, because it is very fluid, I would not be surprised if we see further guidance by the end of the year or at the earliest over the summer in preparing for the next school year. And I think, I really highly think this will not be the end of updating our graduation requirements and our competency determination. I think I'm going to be back here probably more than once to update this policy on behalf of the Medford School Committee. But I think where we are right now, our accountability rating is still tied to the participation of our students. And that is a factor. I understand originally that S and MCAS was supposed to stand for a system and it's really been just a test. So I don't think any of us are sitting here saying that the MCAS shows you everything. of what a student is capable of achieving, but it is a data point that is still mandated by the Department of Education in which we're a public school and we have to adhere to. So that's why I wanted to make sure that I'm providing you with the most updated current information that I have right now.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Dr. Pelosi.
[Galusi]: So there's one last slide I can talk through. And then if there's further questions, we can still talk about it. But there's just further considerations that we have had conversations for. Some of them are ongoing. And so just so that you understand the complexity of it, we have had conversations around transfer students. in terms of obtaining that competency determination if they come into us, let's say in 11th grade or in 12th grade. So there are existing mechanisms within our handbook that we will follow, but there will be collaboration between school leadership and department leadership to make sure that they're vetting and looking at equivalent coursework for approving and adhering to the competency determination. Some nuances for English learners. So graduation requirements for English learners include the successful completion and appropriate EL level course and participation in both MCAS subject matter tests and the access test. For our out-of-district students, it's a very similar process for the transfer that we're adhering to for transfer students. So we will accept equivalent coursework and that will have a collaborative approval process through, again, high school leadership. department leaders, and the director of student services. And for the students, students between those years of 2003 and 2024 that did not receive a high school diploma because they didn't meet the competency determination of passing the MCAS, The high school team has been diligently working to gather that data so that we have that list of students that we will be able to, and actually that's ongoing, that they're reaching out to and making some plans if they want to. meet the competency determination to change that status for them. So that's work that's ongoing. And that concludes, that's the final slide. So if there are any other further questions, I'm happy to help answer. Member Ruseau.
[Ruseau]: Thank you. One of the things that I don't talked about a lot is that our students with significant disabilities that took the ALT MCAS, they never received a real diploma. It was not allowed. So they could perform all of the requirements we have. And because they use the ALT MCAS, they would get a certificate, but not a diploma. And I'm thrilled that the end of the MCAS requirement means that those students who have earned a diploma can get a diploma. And I think that that's important to recognize is that that change wasn't really part of the campaign to get rid of the MCAS. I mean, I know some folks were campaigning in that, but for the most part, it wasn't the main push for it. But I think it's a super important feature of getting rid of this requirement.
[Galusi]: I just want to make sure that it's, I agree, but I also want to make sure that in terms of our local requirement and the CD, so both of those things have to happen in order to get a diploma. And the competency determination means that you are able to pass the grade level content within those subject areas. So any student that's able to meet grade level requirement for integrated math one and two, ELA ninth and 10th grade, and biology, then they've met that competency determination. And then we're moving on to the local requirements. Yes.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Dr. Galusi. Are you looking for a vote?
[Galusi]: Yes.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Is there a motion?
[Galusi]: Just because this would update the policy that is, I believe, IKF for Medford School Committee policy.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So motion for approval to update the graduation competency policy. I have a question about
[Reinfeld]: I was potentially going to motion to take 2025-03 out of order, because that either seems to be a sending this to the subcommittee or just updating the policy. So I see this is coming up on the agenda, but maybe Member Ruseau could clarify whether this is a policy update or a recommendation to send it to the subcommittee.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, Member Ruseau?
[Ruseau]: So it's not unusual for superintendents to actually just recommend policy updates. And I mean, that hasn't been the practice in Medford for as long as I've been on, but I actually appreciate it greatly. The only thing I would say is that the policy know, it's a lovely formatted document, which is not what our policy service is particularly good at, and it lacks the policy required policy information at the end. So I mean, if the committee is okay with approving this as amended to include the policy information section at the end, then I'm fine with us not having more meetings about it. So That's, I guess, an amendment to the recommendation to approve the policy, first reading?
[Galusi]: It would be just to update that language. So the chart that's in here that shows the local graduation requirements and the MCAS, it would just be to update the local graduation requirements, which is really just a shift in how we're labeling the requirements and the competency determination.
[Ruseau]: I mean, I kind of do want to just send this still to subcommittee just because like the current policy is, you know, refers to 2004 and 2005 and format wise, like I feel like the whole policy we currently have has to be thrown out and some of that stuff still has to be incorporated. Like are the actual credit requirements that are in the policy, are those still correct?
[Galusi]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Okay, well that's good to know.
[Galusi]: They reflect the current need and practice right now.
[Ruseau]: Okay. I mean, I don't really, I mean, based on that, I don't think we need a subcommittee, but I do think that like bringing this back in the proper policy format next time. Sure. Makes sense to me, if that's okay with the members, but I would, well, it needs two readings anyways, so. Okay.
[Galusi]: So for the next meeting, I can put it in that format.
[Ruseau]: Yeah, I can help you with that.
[Galusi]: No problem.
[Lungo-Koehn]: So the final is a motion to hold subcommittee meeting to make.
[Galusi]: I think the second reading will be next meeting.
[Lungo-Koehn]: OK, so this motion for approval then by Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Olapade. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Lungo-Koehn]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good presentation, Dr. Galusi. We have another report under superintendent reports. Number two would be summer fund sliding scale report by Dr. Cushing, assistant superintendent, and Noelle Velez, our director of finance.
[Cushing]: Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the School Committee. As you may remember, two weeks ago, we had a motion for a summer fund budget and also to include the exploration of a sliding scale and rate. So tonight, I'm here to discuss that. So first, all the information contained in this report was is shipped from the previous report is shared at the bottom, just for context in case you need it. Also on the call with Noel and myself this evening is Mr. Petrelis, the director of the program, so he can jump in and add any he wished he could be in person. But more than fine having him virtual. So I just want to get into it right away. So annually, the summer fund begins with a zero budget. We're changing our practice on that beginning FY26 so that we can start having Medford's summer fund program be a self-funding, self-sustaining program as it has been, but so that the revenue is not just lumped in with all community schools. that the program can build year over year, can really look at programming and those things and enhancing programming. Summer Fund provides nine hours of childcare per week, every day, nine hours. So currently the fee is $200 or $40 a day. That makes the per hour cost for childcare $4.44. An increase to $250 makes the rate $5.55, and an increase to $2.75, which we are taking off the table, makes the hourly rate for $6.11. I wanted to provide the calculation simply because it was in there last time, but there seemed to be very little appetite for that at that point. Rate card requested is $50 to $250, but we will go through the rest of it. So last year, we had 249 students who participated in multiple weeks of summer fun. Some students may have participated less than a full week at some point. That's 15 students. But 17 enrollees were there for all six weeks of the program last year. Staffing. There were a total number of 25 staffers. That staffing level, and Mr. Petrallis, if you want to jump in on a point, that staffing level may have fluctuated. All right, based on the number of enrollees, but the maximum number of staff that were employed was 25 Councilors, an assistant director of two, and director of one. And counseling fluctuates week by week based on demand. Here you have the specific enrollments with the payroll as well. So just as an example, First week, 71 students. The tuition that week is $160 because it goes up against the 4th of July week, that holiday we don't charge people for. I put in potential just because of some checks that may have not cleared, a small number of that. But so $11,360 potential and our payroll that week was $11,288.67. And you'll see the breakdown of the numbers moving forward. So our—and then potential revenue versus potential price points, based on FY24 numbers, you see the $200 per week $250 per week and $275 per week. That is based on the numbers that we had last year. We have no enrollees right now because we have not opened registration. So that's what that is. The overall budget at a glance. I apologize. Let me just clear that. So we had, based on last year's numbers, we have an expected revenue this year of hopefully $131,960. This is all based on the 200. I'm sorry, this is for FY20. It's very confusing, even for myself at times. looking at the summer of the FY's as they change. But for the FY 25 summer fund budget last year, we brought in $131,960 with checks not clearing in the neighborhood of $1,200 for total summer fund revenue of $130,760. Salaries were $96,280, approximate expenses of $8,000, so total summer fund expenses of $104,280. We then had $26,480 in revenue generated. This does not consider chargebacks that we do for other programs. for electricity and water would be the two primary. The payrolls do include the overtimes for custodial cleanup at the end of the day. Potential revenue from other programs, I just want to say that we put this in here so that we're being transparent. Our EL program has students attend after their programs finish. We do not currently charge those families. We consider that to be a real statement of values to support vulnerable populations, as well as extended school year programs. and that option is there for families, all right, but we do not currently charge for that. So we wanted to quantify that in some way, but I don't want anyone to think that we're seeking to get these funds. All right, before I move forward into the sliding scale, Mr. Petrellis or Noel, is there anything you'd like to add or anything that I've missed at this stage?
[Anthony Petrelis]: No, I thought you'd done an excellent job. This is Anthony Petralas, by the way. Oh, I can do video today. Yeah, so everything's pretty accurate for what we see on there. I mean, the biggest thing, and Dr. Cushing kind of just stressed it at the end, you know, the EL program, the extended school year program, just to give you an idea of how that works. Extended school year, the EL program ends around 12 o'clock, and then Two years ago we had 20 kids it was a trial last year double the amount, just keep in mind, you know, obviously he said it best like we're not looking to charge by any means to a degree, but I also keep in mind if I have 135 140 kids that week. adding on 40 kids in the afternoon brings our numbers up dramatically. So it is a huge undertaking for our program. I just wanna put that out there on top of the other things that I'm responsible for our program. I now become responsible for tutoring schedules with extended school year, getting kids to where they need to go, having a program that comes with us and attaches onto us. So there is a lot that kind that happens in the afternoon with our camp as well that I'm glad Dr. Cushion mentioned to everybody.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. So yeah, are you done with your presentation?
[Cushing]: Nope. Well, sliding scale, but feel free to.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, OK. I just read this earlier, so I knew what the final request was based on all of your research and pulling the data together. So I didn't know what it was. Oh, member Rousseau? Member Branley?
[Ruseau]: This all says FY25. Should you say FY24?
[Cushing]: I mean, it starts, the program starts.
[Ruseau]: We have actual enrollment numbers. Aren't those?
[Cushing]: Summer, yeah.
[Ruseau]: It's FY20. Are these the numbers from last summer?
[Cushing]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: So that's FY24. No, 25. That's FY25.
[Cushing]: Sorry, I messed it up earlier, so I didn't confuse everyone. I accept responsibility. It is FY25.
[Ruseau]: The prediction stuff is that much. Oh, I hate that so much.
[Cushing]: Thank you. Yeah, especially when it's just. And the sliding scale also hurt my brain. I'm not going to lie.
[Galusi]: I just have a point of clarification, though. I do want to just say that. The director of EL Paltek, Sarah, also uses some of his title three funding to help support the staffing needs in the afternoon at summer fund. I believe last summer it was one teacher and two assistants or aides, just so that there is an additional support added to the staffing.
[Branley]: Thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Branley.
[Branley]: I think that that was just clarified my question. So there's someone coming from the EL program to help Mr. Petralas every afternoon with these 40 extra children. Yes. Do we think that's enough people?
[Galusi]: It was three additional staff. I can get more clarification on the amount of time they were there the entire time, but I know that it was one teacher and two aides. One teacher and two aides. Yes, yes, in addition to the summer fund staffing.
[Branley]: So are they in charge of, Mr. Petrellis just mentioned, you know, tutoring and all of this stuff. Is that something that they're responsible for? It seems like he's taking care of that part.
[Cushing]: They provide the tutoring, but as you know, Mr. Petrellis helps ferry the kids to the rooms and where they need to be.
[Galusi]: Yes, the services, the academic services are in the morning. And then the social piece is through summer fun in the afternoon. And Mr. Teixeira has provided some additional staffing for the afternoon. And does that come out of his budget?
[Branley]: Yes, Title III.
[Cushing]: OK.
[Branley]: All right. Thank you.
[Cushing]: So sliding scale, currently two programs within Medford Public Schools use a long existing Sliding scale documents are on our website. And those discount levels based on income levels are 20%, 50%, 70%. So again, before and after care and meet. All right. We also took into consideration here, just so that you're aware, we are now a community eligibility provision district when it comes to food services. What used to drive a lot of financial decisions in district was if a child was considered a free meal, a reduced meal, or full pay. Community eligibility provision only considers, we can get the numbers for reduced, but they only consider free now for part of the to be eligible. What the community eligibility provision does is it takes away the burden of parents having to fill out those forms every year. And it also takes away the burden of the district to have to do a verification process of between 5% and 10% of those forms. A random selection every year was supposed to be done of verifications of those forms to make sure, like, if Mr. Cushing filled it out and you did a random sampling to verify that. Currently, 38% of the Medford public schools are considered free under the federal guidelines. So 62% are considered full pay. I just use those numbers as an illustration. So if we're to extrapolate those numbers, though, and say, well, 38% of students in summer fun, just using statistics, would be probably considered to be free, we'd have to make a decision as to what should the reduction be. using the 20%, 50%, 70% discount numbers, all right? At 20%, at $250, a student would be asked to pay $200, all right? So they would be asked to pay $200 at the 20% level. At the 50% level, they'd be asked to pay $125. At the 70% discount level, they'd be asked to pay $75. The corresponding increase based on a sliding scale for a self-funding program would mean that we would need to basically charge $425 to offset the students at 70% reduction. But then we would not be asking for income from everybody. So it would have to be $425 to make sure that we are covering our costs. And speaking with Mr. Petrales, that is an exorbitant sum. And what we're recommending is the $50 increase, which will allow the director and the assistant director to maintain affordability for Medford families and for us to make sure he offers scholarships now for us to make sure that that process is formalized more so than it already may be. And this will also allow us to take a look at the hourly rate of salaries for our Councilors and the overall stipend of directors, assistant directors and others, but then also to expand programming based on the numbers that were previously showed of revenue increasing to about $168,000. I worry with a sliding scale at this point, and not to say that I wouldn't recommend its consideration in the future, but I worry a sliding scale at this point that with right now summer funds starting with a $0 balance, that the financial burden would fall back on the district or other community schools operations to try to make sure that we're able to fund the summer fund program for the six weeks. If for some reason we misjudge, we over scholarship or do those types of situations.
[Branley]: Member Branley, what was our rate for non-residents? from last time? We had it at $300. It says your non-resident rate is open for discussion, but we recommend $300 at this point.
[Cushing]: Yeah.
[Branley]: So is that where we've been? No.
[Cushing]: It wasn't different. This is not different. OK.
[Branley]: It's been the same.
[Graham]: The same as Nedford Residence?
[Cushing]: Yes.
[Anthony Petrelis]: If I could just add something, if I could add something, it wasn't until after COVID that the first time we've ever really gotten people outside of Medford very interested. And I mentioned last time, it's a really small number that we have in the course of a summer. So this is something that's been newer the last couple of years. So it's something we've had to kind of add and adjust because we've never really had kids from the outside of the city of Medford attend our camp before.
[Cushing]: But I also think Mr. Petrala's office is a great program now with the addition of the school nutrition program offering meals and snacks. It offers, I mean, many of you probably had your children go to it. It's a great program.
[Graham]: Member Graham. Thank you. My math is, not necessarily in agreement with your math here. So what I looked at was if we accept the recommendation to go to $250, but we essentially also accept the 20% discount, which would essentially hold tuition at where it was last year. If I said 38% of our students would pay $200 a week and 62% of our students would pay $250 a week using the 684, I come up with a net potential revenue of $158,004. If I shift that to say half of our students pay $200 and half pay $250, I come up with 153,900. So while I agree that the 70% discount is not affordable, I am not seeing how the 20% discount would not be viable.
[Cushing]: Just to be clear, I did not do that extrapolation based on the 38% and the 62%. But it's also, I think, a choice of the committee to say, right now, it rests with the Director of Community Schools and the Director of Summer Fund to, as parents or caregivers, bring need forward to respond to the need and provide at the individual level. So if a parent, family, caregivers make the case that, you know, we really need an opportunity here for our child, but we can't afford it, the program works with them. But formalizing it is always.
[Graham]: Yeah. I mean, I think my concern with that is there's, you know, lots of places in our storied history in Medford where people point to lack of transparency, lack of accountability, cherry picking, favoritism, you name it, it comes. So I do think from a programming perspective, I understand that Mr. Petrellis has the best of intentions. But if somebody were to bring an allegation forward, that sits with this committee. And I would really rather avoid putting Mr. Petrellis in a situation where he's having to defend trying to do the right thing. So I do think there need to be clear rules and I think there need to be clearly published tuitions that accompany those rules so that the rules of engagement for everybody are clear and parents who may or may not feel comfortable saying to Mr. Petrellis, hey, I need some help, like being willing and able to say, hey, I need some help requires an immense amount of like understanding of the system versus like, here are the two programs, here are these possibilities for you so that people can do their homework and understand that if A, then B, right? Like if I meet this, then I get X versus I have to go talk to somebody. What does that mean? Am I making a case? Am I trying to convince him? Do I need to buy him candy? Like what is like, it sort of conjures up a lot of things that people get scared about and then frankly don't do. It probably also contributes to the bounced checks that we see, right? Those could be families who simply couldn't afford to send their kid, but had no choice, right? Needed childcare. So my math says, even if half of our students need support, our total tuition, either 153,000 or 158,000, would still be $20,000 more than last year. And if payroll is only $96, there's a lot of room there to make those adjustments. So unless I'm missing something, my motion would be to hold tuition at $200 for those who can demonstrate financial need, to increase tuition for everybody else to $250, and to increase tuition for non-residents to $300 a week.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sure.
[Graham]: So families who can demonstrate financial need through eligibility in what would otherwise be free and reduced lunch, right? 200, which is the same as last year. All other families will see an increase from 200 to 250. Out-of-town participants, we love you. You're welcome. It's a $300 a week tuition.
[Cushing]: and still a very good deal.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. Okay. Motion for approval seconded by Member Reinfeld. Let me just go to Noel who wants to comment.
[Noel Velez]: Thank you, everyone. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. But Jenny, thank you so much for what you said. If I can have a little bit of clarity and ask a question, what date would the school committee like for myself and Peter to use regarding a student eligibility when we run our direct certification? Because we run those quarterly, so we can either use a December or an April 1st date to dictate how a family qualifies for these reduced prices, depending on enrollment and things of that nature, I guess. that's that would be my only thing I'd want to bring up. I'm going if with the recommendation to sliding scale so we have a so we have a date to use the proper report and notify families in a timely manner.
[Graham]: So I would amend my motion to say as established on April on the April 1st reports for financial eligibility.
[Noel Velez]: Thank you very much.
[Graham]: From December to April so I want to use the what is sort of closest to
[Intoppa]: I'll also add that.
[Reinfeld]: So I agree with that and the reason behind it. My only question is whether that poses a, if we're looking to be opening registration in January, are we concerned that that would affect people's ability to commit or our ability to guarantee a spot?
[Cushing]: I'm not worried about that. In all honesty, if we can still open in January, we can let people know about the opportunity for scholarshipping as well as, and look to support families. I don't see it as an issue. I think that by going to January 1st is only gonna help families who, if you've ever been sitting online for these camps, Good Lord.
[Lungo-Koehn]: And so we haven't opened registration yet. So once this is finalized, it seems like it's going to be supported tonight. Then we're going to advertise an open registration for when?
[Cushing]: As soon as possible. OK. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_09]: Member Reinfeld?
[Reinfeld]: Will this opening of registration coincide with other summer programs? I don't know if jumpstart dates are set or other.
[Lungo-Koehn]: This will be early, I think. Earlier. Usually start thinking about it in May.
[Galusi]: Jumpstart dates are finalizing right now. So I think we'll have that update within a week or two, definitely after the vacation period, if not by the end of the week. The only thing I would say is I don't know As Director Valez said, the report is run quarterly, so I think we would also have some preliminary information that we could start to have some of the understanding as to where the families are that may need potential support, and then it would be able to be a finalized list as of April.
[Anthony Petrelis]: Can I ask a question? It's Anthony on the Zoom. Um, I mean, I'm not trying to be funny, but like, so what does that, I just don't know. Like, so what does that mean for registration as far as like what we would have to do next? I'm more just like, I guess I got to hear it to kind of understand what the next steps would be if everything does get approved as far as figuring a lot of that out.
[Lungo-Koehn]: I think we'd update all the forms. And then once everything's ready to go, release it to the public for registration.
[Ruseau]: OK.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Memogram.
[Graham]: My my impression as well Anthony is that the communications team can support some of that work, because I think last time last two weeks ago whenever that was we also talked about. That the idea of. allowing all of this to happen in an online format so there's no checks. So all of that I think is going to require support from Will and the website team anyway. So I think putting all of that together as a package is something that you can expect assistance with from central administration.
[Cushing]: We have been working just so everyone's full transparency. We've been working with our website vendor on two specific options. One that is available to us right now through the forms functionality of our website. We already can accept payments and then we're also looking at an enrollment package with our website as well. Probably more to come on that in the future. But just so that everyone's clear, we're trying to make it so that people don't have to stand in lines, people don't have to write checks, and that we can move into the 21st century. I do just also want to check through the wonders of modern technology and just wanted to verify. We can run CEP anytime. We run it quarterly. We can run it anytime through our food service director as well. So we will go with the April 1st date, because I think that's a good standard. But as families come in, we are able to. I mean, there will be one, I think, not to take up any more airtime, but one of the great things about Summer Fund is the ability for a person to walk in. And so I think there will be some level of checks. We'll have to see how a day of registration can work using the website. However, this should reduce a significant level of stress that has been on Mr. Petrellis and hopefully making this an easier process.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Yes. Once we advertise the right way, more people are bound to do it online and take that stress away. So there's a motion on the floor by Member Graham, seconded by Member Reinfeld, as amended by Member Graham to make it the April 1st reports for eligibility date $250 for those with financial need, $200 for those with financial need, $250 for everybody else, and if you're out of town, $300. All those in favor, would you like a roll call? No, we don't need a roll call. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes.
[Graham]: And Mayor, can I just make one more comment? If you're going to change the salary stipends associated with the program, can you bring them to us so that we can have an understanding of what those are before they go into effect? Because we are supposed to, I think we're supposed to be in approval of all of those things.
[Cushing]: We would, I would not increase the salary or stipend without bringing it. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Yep.
[Anthony Petrelis]: Can I ask one more question? I know we just voted on it, but it was something I wanted to ask. I just don't want to be rude and interrupt anybody. Kids who go to like Catholic school or private school outside of like that live in Medford, but go to a school in Medford like that. I'm just more asking opinion than anything else. What would be or would that be considered out of district as well?
[Graham]: Wow, what an interesting wrinkle. I think if they're residents, they're residents. They live in Medford. They get the resident rate. But I'd be super interested to know what the enrollment breakdown is, actually, which is a totally separate conversation for another time. But I think that would actually be really fascinating to learn about.
[Cushing]: But also, Mr. Petrelis, maybe we could work to help recruit those kids back to our school district.
[Intoppa]: Try.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Mr. Petralas. Thank you, Director Velez. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. We have no presentations of the public or continued business. We do have new business, however. Offered by Member Ruseau, 2025-03. Motion to withdraw. Second by Member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion is withdrawn. offered by Member Graham, 2025-04. Be it resolved that the Rules and Policy Subcommittee will develop a policy regarding district financial support for field trips. Be it further resolved that the subcommittee will consider various types of field trips, including local and out-of-state, and outline criteria and perimeters clearly in the policy. Be it also resolved that the subcommittee will confer with the district finance team to understand the potential cost impact of the policy. The subcommittee will provide recommendations to the school committee no later than June 1st, 2025. Member Graham.
[Graham]: Thank you. We all, I think, received some emails from our color guard students who were talking about this upcoming trip to Pennsylvania and One of the things that brought up for me was really around some of the one-off actions that we've taken as a committee over the last couple of years, albeit we had lesser money to rely on, which we no longer have. But we have funded out-of-state field trips in certain instances based upon people coming to the podium and making a request and for us saying like, want students to have to go out and fundraise and miss trips in order to be able, you know, in order to be able to send some but not all students. So with that money source drying up and with sort of a broad acknowledgement that there's a lot of field trips across the district and there's things like nationals for athletics and nationals for band and color guard and the ethics bowl and the robotics competition. There's all these things. And we have not set a policy around what we think we should be doing. And I think I would love to say for us to be able to say, we should pay for these things. But before we do that, we should think about what a policy might look like. And if we are going to bring forward a recommendation to pay for things, obviously that has to be budgeted and all the other things. And we would need to understand like, what is the potential cost of such a policy? So this is just simply to say that the rules and policy subcommittee will take this up and we'll draft a policy, think about the different kinds of field trips, work with the administration, and then also, you know, think about what the financial impact of whatever the recommendation is so that Our classes, our advisors, our students, like they know what the rules of the road are and it isn't. sort of a squeaky wheel situation where we have some things being funded and not others. So I, you know, we might have to take some baby steps to get to a reality where we don't have to ask students to fundraise and pay for things. But the first step in baby steps is to like decide like where it is that you want to go. So my hope is that the policy will help us establish where we want to go and then quantify like what, you know, what are the steps we might take to get there. This is just to move it to subcommittee.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion is for approval by Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Opade. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Paper will go into subcommittee. for review and report out June 1st or before. Next up, 2025-05, offered by Member Graham, be it resolved that the school committee makes the following changes to the membership of the Smetford Comprehensive High School Building Committee. Replace Dr. Edouard-Vincent, superintendent, with Dr. Suzanne Galusi, interim superintendent, as a voting member. Replace Dr. Galusi's position as assistant superintendent as a voting member with Joan Bowen as a voting member. and replace Tom Dalton as a non-voting member with Will Pippicelli as a non-voting member. Remove, at the request of the committee member, Lawrence Brown, non-voting member. Add an MTA member and Medford resident at the recommendation of Monica Raul to replace Lawrence Brown. Be it further resolved that the committee is renewed through September 2026 or through the conclusion of the feasibility phase, whichever comes first.
[Graham]: Motion for approval by. Can I just say something? Yes, Member Graham. Just to clarify the addition with, you know, when we added Mr. Brown to the committee, he told me he was like in this for a year. He's newly retired. I'm envious of his retirement, but I guess he's ready to actually be retired. So he sort of filled a spot that we talked about being really important, which is some additional voice from the MTA. I did go back through and there weren't a lot of other potential candidates who are still in the district, et cetera. So this will allow us to go ask Ms. Cabral for a recommendation for somebody who is both an MTA member and a Medford resident. So it's not two people, it's just one, but just an acknowledgement that that's going to happen outside of the initial application process so that there is somebody sort of filling that space. And then once this is approved and Marta works to identify that person, we'll have to submit this form to the MSBA, which is why we all need to approve it tonight.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Wonderful. Thank you for all that work. Motion for approval by Member Graham, seconded by Member Intoppa. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 2025-06, offered by Member Graham, be it resolved the Medford School Committee enters into the feasibility study agreement with the Massachusetts School Building Authority for the Medford High School Project. Member Graham?
[Graham]: Yes. So as you all know, we worked really hard to get all of our eligibility information into the MSBA in early July. We worked with them really from July until December on what is called an enrollment certification, which is essentially the headcount of students that we will build a high school for. So our current enrollment at the high school is about 1,200 students. And we've worked really hard with them to demonstrate what we see here in Medford in collaboration with the mayor's office and our head of planning and development. We've looked at permitted projects. We've looked at future potential projects we've had conversations, and we certified enrollment with MSBA at 1395 which is almost a 200 student increase which is great. I think that's a really sort of nice number and a place for us to grow into. Now, the next step in the process is for us to authorize the feasibility study agreement, which is a standard agreement. It outlines and reports on things that have already happened, like the approval of $3 million, et cetera, and allows the district to enter into this next phase where we will hire an owner's project manager and a designer to do the feasibility study. and this body needs to, is the approving body for the feasibility study funds to be expended in that way. So we need to sign that. This group will need to sign off on that tonight. And then the board meeting for the MSBA is the week after February vacation. I think it's the 26th or 27th. So it's my full expectation that the team will recommend to the board that we be invited to the next phase, which is exciting. The building committee is going to get working starting tomorrow to get ready for those next phase deliverables so we can very quickly get an RFP out the door and be ready to hire owner's project manager and really get to this next phase, which is where like all those meaty questions get answered, which is exciting. So this group needs to give us authorization to sign that agreement. Howard, Attorney Greenspan, has a document he'll fill out. The mayor has something that she will sign on behalf of the school committee. And then we will be off to the races for the board meeting. Wonderful. That meeting's the 24th. 24th, thank you.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve by Member Reinfeld, seconded by Member Opade. All those in favor? Can you do a roll call just so that we can record it? Yes, roll call, please.
[Ruseau]: Member Granley.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Ruseau]: Member Intoppa. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Longo.
[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Submitted the affirmative. Zero the negative. Paper passes. Thank you. Thank you. Do not have any reports requested. We do have a few condolences. The members of the Medford School Committee expressed their sincere condolences to the family of Anne Louise Riley Ellis. Miss Riley Ellis was a special education teacher for the Medford Public School Elementary Schools. Members of the Medford School Committee express their sincerest condolences to the family of Phyllis Connerney. Miss Connerney was a first grade teacher in Medford Public Schools. Members of the Medford School Committee express their sincere condolences to the family of Robert G. Chevrier, former principal of both St. Clements and St. Joseph's, and teacher at St. Raphael's and Matanon. and members of the member school committee express their sincerest condolences to the family of Josephine Jody Petner, mother of Allison Watts, special education teacher at the Brooks Elementary School. We all may rise for a moment of silence. Thank you. Our next regular meeting is Wednesday, February 26. This meeting will be held via remote participation. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'm member Graham, seconded by member Intoppa. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Meeting's adjourned.
|
total time: 9.9 minutes total words: 1385  |
total time: 5.28 minutes total words: 860  |
total time: 12.19 minutes total words: 1901  |
total time: 22.15 minutes total words: 2913  |
|
total time: 0.26 minutes total words: 52  |
total time: 1.9 minutes total words: 360  |
total time: 0.74 minutes total words: 125  |
|