[Jenny Graham]: be a regular school committee meeting of the Medford School Committee at the Howard Alden Memorial Chambers in Medford City Hall via remote participation. This meeting is being recorded. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel. which is Comcast 98 or 22 and Verizon 43, 45 or 47. And participants can also log in by using the following Zoom link. The Zoom ID is 964-0316-5259. Member Ruseau, can you please call the roll?
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: Here.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Masturbani. Here. Member Olapade. Here. Member Parks. Here. Member Reinfeld. I don't know if she's coming online. I don't see her. Absent for now. Member Ruseau, present. And Mayor Langenkern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Present.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, six in the affirmative, one on the way. And then welcome to our student representatives. I see we have three students joining us today. Are you all ninth graders? Yes, great, welcome. And we have Savannah and Leo, and I'm sorry, I don't know your name because we didn't get to meet. Lillian, nice to meet you, welcome. So we have three student reps with us tonight. And we will move on to salute the flag, so all please rise. 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. Okay, next on our agenda, we have our consent agenda. which includes approval of bills and payrolls, approval of FY26 stabilization journal entry, which is 20871 for $1,085,549. That is stabilization money from our override. We have budget transfers, journal entry 20850 for $5,169.06, journal entry 20851 for $275 and journal entry 20852 for $800. We also have approval of field trips, one to the annual auto tech trip to the New England Dragway in New Hampshire on June 5th. One world language trip to France and Italy in April 2027. And we have approval of meeting minutes. We have our regular meeting on May 4th, and we have a special meeting of the school committee, which is a public budget hearing that we held remote only on May 12th. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?
[Aaron Olapade]: Motion to approve.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second? Motion, motion approved by Member Lopate, seconded by Mike. Can I just ask one question before we call the roll? You're running the show. What's that? You're running the show. The field trip for France and Italy, I'm hearing that it is only available to juniors and seniors next year, is that true? Does anybody know?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Well, Dr. Talbot is overseeing this trip, so I'm going to have her come up just in case there's a follow-up question that I'm not completely aware of.
[Jenny Graham]: Perfect. Thanks. My question was about the field trip and I'm hearing from students that only juniors and seniors will be invited to participate in this trip, which is a difference of policy than we have held in past field trips.
[yGcuIBQZTjc_SPEAKER_00]: This field trip is based on other field trips that do this kind of traveling. It's for retention and recruitment and celebration in multi-year world language studies. So the original design of this field trip is that students have enough world language experience to be able to communicate in those countries. And so the initial bar is set at juniors and seniors, and then they'll take it from there.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, thanks. Thank you. Can you call the roll, Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld is absent. Member Ruseau, yes. And Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. Zero in the negative. One absent. The consent agenda is approved. We don't have any report of subcommittees. I will submit my report from strategic planning at our next meeting. And we'll move on to the report of the superintendent with the Mustang moment. Dr. Galussi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. Good evening. So tonight we have students from our career technical education programs. I know four are going to be highlighted but I'm going to ask director Fallon to come up and do a little overview and he can introduce the first students.
[Chad Fallon]: Good evening. Thank you for having us tonight. It's my pleasure to highlight some accomplishments of some career technical education students tonight. We have four seniors that are going to be graduating, and we have one junior. And I'd like to start with the electrical students and their teacher.
[Rich Cormio]: Good evening. Tonight I'm presenting to you Brody Sherblom and Cole McDermott. Both of them have been students in our program since they were sophomores, and now they've been chosen to join the IBEW Local Union 103. So they'll start their schooling in September, and they should have jobs by July. They'll be making a boatload of money, and they'll be doing quite well. So we just want to take a moment to congratulate them on a job well done.
[SPEAKER_14]: I'd just like to say thank you to Mr. Cormier. He's been a good teacher for the past three years. He got me to where I am right now, so thank you. Mr. Fallon, thank you for letting me into the electrical program, because I transferred from Arlington Catholic as a sophomore. I'm very happy to start in June for the IBW 103.
[SPEAKER_01]: I'd like to thank the same people as well, Mr. Cormier and Mr. Fallon, for the opportunities we have at the Volk. And I'm also very excited to start here in July for the union.
[Chad Fallon]: And I know it's about the students, but we do have a certain somebody who's retiring from the district after 29, 19 years. How dare I? Mr. Cormier is going to be leaving us at the end of June. And I just want to publicly thank him for his service and dedication to the electrical program where he was once a student. And I really appreciate what he's done for me when I came into Medford is not knowing much about the community. He really helped kind of bring me into Medford. So thank you, Mr. Cormier, and congratulations to you. OK, our next student I'm going to bring up is from our biotechnology program. Jaden Zhang was recognized at the Mass Association of Vocational Administrators for the Outstanding Student of the Year. He is also our top-ranked CTE student this year, and he will be speaking at our graduation. Jaden.
[Jayden Giang]: Hello. I just wanted to talk about how I ended up getting here and the steps I took to reach where I am today. I originally joined the CTE program because I wanted to explore different opportunities. I didn't know what I'd do after high school. And at first, I thought I would go into a shop like automotive or electrical, but as I got through the exploratories, I ended up choosing biotech. And that's partly due to Mr. Rousseau. He's my biotech teacher, and he's a really funny guy, and I like the way he teaches. My other biotech teacher, Mr. Weigel, he helped push me to take a class at Bunker Hill, which I thought was a really nice experience because it helped me get to know what college would be like in the future, as well as just learn a few more things in biology. Where will you be attending in the fall? I'll be attending the UMass Boston Honors College in the fall, and I'll be majoring in biology.
[Chad Fallon]: And with us tonight, we have a junior student in the health assisting program. She's gonna speak about her experience recently having completed all requirements and receiving her certification as a certified nursing assistant, Ms. Hannah Maroof.
[SPEAKER_13]: Um, hi. I just wanted to say, um, like, thank you to Mr. Fallon and to Mr. Fimo and our new teacher, Miss Grover. Um, I've been in shop since freshman year. And I 1,000% did not think I was going to pick health assisting, because when I was little, I was always like, I'm going to cure cancer, and I'm going to be a doctor. But being in the shop shows me that this is so hard. Grace to everybody who is in the health care field, because it is a hard job. And in shops, specifically, working on all of the completions you need in the hours for clinical definitely brought a lot of tears. But it was so much fun because I get to experience everything in the real world that I would probably be doing in college as a 16-year-old in high school, which I believe is very amazing. And we recently just took our CNA test, and we all pretty much got 100 flat on the skills exam. So that was perfect.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I believe that's two years in a row, Mr. Fallon.
[Chad Fallon]: I was just going to say, not that we're keeping count, but that is 100% pass rate. And the CNA test is a rigorous two-part exam. It's a practical assessment and a written component. And all students that have taken it up to this point this year have successfully passed. These are just examples of many of the things that go on every day in our school, but it's nice to have a minute to highlight a few here tonight. So thank you for having us.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any questions from the committee before we ask our students to come up and take a picture? Did I see a question? Erica, sorry, member Reinfeld.
[Erika Reinfeld]: So one comment, which is, so a couple of us attended the health career signing day at the school and everything you talked about was what the featured speakers talked about. Were you at that ceremony as well? Yes. Excellent, yeah, so it was really encouraging to see. that what you're doing in school is really mirroring it. And I will say, I worked at a cancer center for 10 years. And it takes a lot of people to find cures for cancer, right? Everyone works together. And that was one of the really wonderful things to see. And then speaking of working together, I was wondering in the biotech program, when I toured it when I first joined the school committee, they were talking about the collaboration between the biotech and the auto mechanics. Did you get a chance to participate in that? Because I remember you just said, I thought maybe I do auto mechanics. And I was really intrigued to hear how those were coming together.
[Jayden Giang]: So my year specifically, we didn't, we weren't a large part of it, but we were able to view like the go-kart we were working on. We were trying to troubleshoot what happened to the engine after it failed.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Super important.
[Jayden Giang]: Yeah. Oh, we were actually making biodiesel in our lab in order to fuel the go-kart.
[Erika Reinfeld]: So I just, I love seeing how everything kind of comes together in practice there. So thank you for illustrating that and sharing your experience. That's all for questions from me.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions, comments? Okay, if our students can come up, we love to take quick pictures to commemorate your presentations with us. Okay, on to item number two. Recommendation to approve Medford Public Schools as a no school choice district. Dr. Galussi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay, thank you. So tonight, we're here to present the formal recommendation regarding our district's participation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts External School Choice Program for the upcoming 26-27 school year. So under Massachusetts school law, every public school district is automatically mandated to participate in this external program and accept out-of-district students unless the local school committee takes an official vote to opt out of the program. Because of this framework, we must officially report the decision that's made here this evening to DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in June each year. So just after careful consideration, we are here and looking at our operational capacity, our financial capacity. It is the school district's recommendation that Medford Public School, excuse me, the Medford School Committee vote not to participate in the school choice program for next year. By voting to opt out, we maintain a consistent historical position that Medford has held since this state program's inception, and our decision is rooted in operational and financial responsibility. Just to capture a little bit, if you remain in the program, the out-of-district students would receive a state baseline tuition, and these admissions also depend on availability that could introduce a little bit of an unexpected enrollment fluctuations across grade levels and or buildings. Historically, we have opted out of this to maintain local efforts around maximizing our resources, our time, and our instructional focus for Medford residents. And so therefore, we do recommend that we continue to opt out of the no school choice status.
[Paul Ruseau]: Motion to approve.
[Jenny Graham]: Motion approved by Member Ruseau. Is there a second? By Member Parks. Are there any questions from the committee before we call the roll? Okay, Member Ruseau, will you call the roll? Oh, sorry, Member Mastroboni.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: So a vote yes on this is to vote to opt out?
[Jenny Graham]: Correct.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Understood, thank you.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeldt? Yes. Member Ruseau? Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, the motion passes. Okay, on to item number four, a recommendation to approve the Medford Public Schools handbooks by Dr. Glucy.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think, well, three is the schedule. Do we want?
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, geez, I just checked it off and moved right past it. Sorry, that's my fault. I'm getting ahead of myself. Recommendation two, item number three. Recommendation to approve the school year 26-27 school committee meeting schedule by Dr. Glucy.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you so I know in your packets you have the proposed schedule for the school committee meetings for next school year 2627 we have typically followed pretty much the same type of routine and schedule. The only things I would call out is that. in November, we are intentionally avoiding the Monday before Election Day, as sometimes that gets to be a little tricky. And then there are three meetings in March and two back to back in April to account for the vacation school vacation that month. Otherwise, it's pretty holding the routine schedule, but happy to answer any questions.
[Jenny Graham]: Member Reinfeld.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I'm curious why the budget hearing is Zoom only. It is a Monday, which means we should presumably have access to chambers and just in the interest of, since this is the public meeting, making it accessible to people in person. And I know the last two years it went really quickly, the year before that it did not.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes. So to be honest, we are open to either way. One of the benefits that we felt this year to having it Zoom only were two distinct benefits. One was we did feel that it was maybe more accessible to be via Zoom, but also in full transparency, it was also just the length of time sometimes to be standing at the podium is a little bit easier for presentation of the actual presenters. So I'm also open to maybe a format that provides a little bit more accessibility for the district employees.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, the other, the other piece that I'm thinking about is that, that is March of 2027. And while I know that it is not a budget about the high school, right? Our annual operating budget is separate from any kind of capital project.
[Patricia Chery]: Yes.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Like a debt exclusion. But I, I'm wondering if we're expecting increased engagement. Because we will be leading up to. the, a, a debt exclusion vote in a, later in the spring.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I mean, all of that is possible. This maintains the school committee.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, no, this, this schedule, I think the schedule is fine. I'm just wondering about the format.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I, I. I think we're happy, we're happy to have it in the hybrid model that we have now. I would just maybe, we can talk through some of the logistics of.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, so let's, let's keep that open, but I'm fine with the dates as written. My only other question was we, I guess we haven't formalized the new rules, but we had indicated that we wanted to set a summer, a default summer meeting that could be canceled if we don't need it, but just to put it on the calendar. So I guess that can be scheduled offline with people's availability, since it won't necessarily be on this Monday's.
[Jenny Graham]: That's typically what we've done.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah. Okay, then I will motion to approve this.
[Jenny Graham]: We have a motion to approve by member Reinfeld. Is there a second? by Member Master Boney. I did have one question. We also often or at least talk about a third meeting in June because June tends to be a really busy time of year and trying to jam something into the calendar is much more difficult than pulling it off of the calendar if it's not needed. So I might offer a friendly amendment to add June 14th to this schedule.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I'll accept that from the motion. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: I just when we get into June it's really hard to add more things. Taking them away is always joyful.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So as we approach the second June in this position it's very tight to get everything in. So yeah I believe we agree.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so there's a motion to approve with the amendment of the addition of June 14th by Member Reinfeld, seconded by Member Mastroboni. Member Ruseau, do you want to call the roll?
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The motion is approved. On to item number five, recommendation to approve updated language for MPS restraint policy and bullying intervention, bullying prevention and intervention plan. Oh, jeez. I did it again. I'm sorry. I'm going to back up and stop checking things off my little list here. Item number four is a recommendation to approve the MPS handbooks by Dr. Glusi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you very much.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to put my pen down.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Don't check it off yet. So in your packets what we have provided to school committee is just the updates the proposed updates to each respective schools handbook. So it is each school. for people in the community that are listening, have a school council that is comprised of educators, caregivers, and if you're lucky, a community member. And part of the task of a school-specific site council is to review the handbook and see if there are any updates to the language that needs to be accounted for. for the next school year's handbook. And so you have in front of you the proposals from all but three schools. The Brooks School, the McGlynn Elementary, and the Missittuck are not proposing any change to language for next year's 26-27 handbooks. But the other schools do have some minor tweaks to language and I'm happy to answer any of those questions that you may have. Just high level, the Roberts wants to put a definition for chronic absenteeism and a little bit more clarity on how caregivers could fill out quarries. I think the biggest piece to note is that all secondary schools, so Andrews Middle School, McGlynn Middle School, and Medford High School, have added the language around. updated language around academic dishonesty. So as part of the new AI policy that was voted and implemented this year, part of the language in that calls for updating the academic dishonesty protocols to not only include AI language, but also with special care to the creation of the panel. And that work this year that you see reflected here was done with secondary and central office leaders with student input. And so what you have here are those updates to address the concerns that were mentioned at this meeting and from members of the community. I gave it its own section but all three of those secondary schools will include this in their handbooks. In addition, the Andrews has worked really hard this year collectively with the staff on writing a new mission, vision and core values. You will see that also included here. And then the with our new schedule at the secondary at the middle school level, you see just some brief language change for the Andrews and the McGlynn middle to account for how challenge courses are graded and the high school is currently working on merging the athletics handbook with the student and family handbook. That is still something that's in flux, but there's just brief language in there to account for that. And then Principal Cabral has worked in collaboration and partnership with Director Layden on adding some language about AI metaglasses. to the acceptable use policy at the high school level. And that's just a high level kind of accounting for the pieces, for the additional language changes for next school year. If there are any questions. Oh, questions, plenty of questions.
[Jenny Graham]: Member Reinfeld. Member Ruseau was first. Okay, Member Ruseau.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. So the middle schools look fine to me. The high school looks fine to me. The elementary schools, the number of places for which recess is taken away as punishment is a bit upsetting. It's in fact multiple places in each of them because of the consistency between them, of course. So I, I do, I would be uncomfortable approving the elementary school ones until somebody takes a look at those. So, I, I would, I think the motion we need is the motion to approve them all. But I would certainly motion to, I'd rather have some more discussion before I take those off the, out of the, take them off the table.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld? Yes. So I'm really glad to see that the academic honesty panel language is coming in, and thank you to everyone who worked to figure out what that looks like. I think there are still some things that are not necessarily clear, whether the panel We don't say that it's people who have not been involved in the initial dispute, so we kind of don't know where that's going. Is it going to someone who is reviewing the potentially plagiarized content anonymously? Is it a face-to-face where the teacher who was questioning it is working with the principal to determine like who it needs, I think it needs to be clarified who is actually at the table and because basically the academic dishonesty panel is an elevation of this couldn't be resolved in a one-to-one setting so what does that look like and I don't know if there's an appeal process for that as there is for other escalated questions. So I think that was my big question about that. And then there is some inconsistency on the attendance policies. So our middle schools, the Andrews handbook says an absence is four hours. The high school says 3.5. Is that because the school day is different? The high school doesn't say anything about per period versus total hours. McGlynn says two periods, two consecutive periods counts as a day. Andrews doesn't say that. So I think we need to be consistent, particularly between the two middle schools. And then to clarify, does missing a single period class, is that, how does that fit into the total absences? Is it that you're, is it the class that you're you're failing, is it the whole day, what does that look like? So, I would like to see that cleaned up and more consistent before we approve this.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I think there are others, there are also some other inconsistencies, right? The Missituk says the buses have assigned seats, no one else says that. The school committee Addresses are listed in one of the handbooks. I think it's Andrews. I would like the school committee personal home address to come out. Somebody definitely went up to my kid and said, hey, I know where you live, because I read the handbook. So it was... I don't want to call out which one it was. I wrote it down. Anyway, but sometimes it's got our email addresses and phone numbers. One of them doesn't even mention the school committee at all, which is fine, but I think that should be consistent as well.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions from the committee?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Oh, sorry, and I, I, I didn't go into the nitty gritty on everything, but the school council is mentioned in most places, but not everywhere. And one of them lists a former principal who has retired as the head of the council. So, if that could just be cleaned up to say, even if it's just principal slash chair, cuz one of them doesn't even name the principal, just says the principal is the chair of the committee. So, I'm happy to send those, but.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I would appreciate that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: And I don't know if I really need to talk about the issue of the recess stuff now. I know we've talked offline, Superintendent, so I can save us all the trouble right now if you feel like you know where to go with this.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I mean, honestly, I'm happy to have a conversation with you. Okay. I want to review a little bit more closely. I know that we did this work several years ago. So the handbook should reflect the work that was done several years ago. There is also, at the elementary level, we are responsive classroom. And part of the responsive classroom approach is that consequences for student behavior are logical. And so we've talked a great deal about the loss of recess when it's logical is for clearly when children have unsafe bodies on the playground or during recess, a time to just step away, calm down, get regulated again. That's logical. That's a logical consequence. If there are situations, there should not be language in there, but if there are situations where we're, you know, taking recess away for not bringing in homework, that's not part of the, or, or, and aligned to the spirit of the school committee policy. So, I'm happy to have a conversation with you and review that with.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. I think just being more explicit, like any student who is referred to the main office could have recess taken away. I mean, I may have been to the main office a few times myself as a child, but it is hard to find any kind of logical consequence. And I don't know what the stats are and how often kids are sent to the main office. But recess seems like the worst thing you could do is take recess away. It's like kids need that. And I realize DESE does not count it as educational time, which hopefully I can get some of that fixed. But thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions? Member Mastroboni?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Thank you. This may be a naive question, but when I open up, the first thing I did was look at one of the middle school parent guidance handbooks. They're really long. They're 70 pages. They have some information in the front about the district, and then they immediately start going into policies really fast. Has there been any work at any point, or are you planning any work to set up some sort of, like, way to navigate the document a little bit better. Me, as someone who spends a lot of time in obscure, obtuse documents, I could probably... I will have to figure this out, but I think, do we translate this? I know there's a lot of jargon in here, a lot of legalese. What do we do to make sure people aren't getting this information? The reason I'm asking this question is because whenever we update, you know, academic dishonesty policies. I'm really interested in understanding like how the district is going to make sure all the students and the parents know that we're changing this so that we can ensure that nobody has to break this policy.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So I would say in full transparency, I have not undertaken that work yet. I think it is important work. I would say that at the elementary level, which is to what member Ruseau had mentioned, we did do that work to align. The way the handbooks have been here historically, and like I said, haven't done a review or an audit, but the school specific information should be at the front. Medford and Commonwealth policies should be at the back. There was some work done at the elementary level pre-COVID though to align so that there was that alignment and it was for, I wouldn't say the sole purpose, but two main reasons was to have some, to make sure that there was alignment amongst the four elementary schools and for translation purposes. So that way, when we're sending out our handbooks to be translated, The policies that were at the back are right. They're all the same and we only have to have that translation done once. And then the school specific translations can be done on an individual basis. But I have there has not been that work at the secondary level at all. So I will I mean I'm happy to review especially the two middle schools for better alignment in terms of layout and format.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: That's really helpful, thank you. And what I've remembered was that my Roberts handbook was totally different, and it was great, and it was awesome. So I'd love to hear what you're going to work on. Thank you. Yeah, thanks.
[Jenny Graham]: And then I just had one other thing to flag. In the middle school, I know it says the quarterly challenge courses are graded on a pass-fail basis. I just want to double check the CBA that that is a continuing policy versus a first year of the contract policy. And I'm just honestly not remembering off the top of my head. But I know there were some one year transitional conversations versus other things that were a longer term policy. Yes. Agreed. And I think we are still in conversation. So I just wouldn't want to put it into the handbook that it was one way if it is not yet final. So that would be the other thing to flag. But I also thank you for this easy way to understand what has changed. This makes all of that reading a little bit easier. But to remember Master Boney's point, perhaps at some point, we can also get to a place where we can give people a one pager of here's the really important things you need to know. And if you have more questions, here's how you navigate the handbook kind of scenario. because the handbook is really, I mean, to say that people read it before they sign off on it at the beginning of the year is like we're all kidding ourselves, but the handbook is there and so the most important thing is that you know it's there and you can go find it if you have a question, which is good, but are there some salient things that would be useful for people to know right up front? Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. Member Mastroboni said something and as well as Member Graham, the what changed thing that I, that we have asked for as part of our policy which is now, which is great, you know, to reread the whole thing every year. I'm just realizing that like we should provide like an intro to all of them that's like a couple of pages that like, hey, you read it last year, just read the first couple of pages, you know it changed. And then we can literally tell people, if you read it this year, like kindergarten families, read the whole thing. Next year, you'll only have to read the first couple pages and tell you what changed. Of course, the middle school families will have to be told to read the whole thing. But I think that would be helpful because I also think we should revisit the notion of people signing off. We're literally asking everybody to sign and say they did something that very few families have done. And that just feels a little icky. It's like we're trying to make it clear that we mean it. But a signature for something that's 70-something pages long that very few people have read It just doesn't feel right. I don't think the signature thing is any kind of mandatory thing. I think that's just something we do, or is it mandatory? I don't know. I'll look into that, but we should revisit the signature thing. Signing that you've received it is one thing, but I believe it does say you have read it and understand it.
[Suzanne Galusi]: It does. I hear you, but I also can understand the acknowledgement part of just having some understanding as to what is in there. There's school specific information that's important. I think there are, to your point, I think there are pieces that could definitely be called out, but things around attendance, arrival dismissal, certain procedures like the bullying policy and now the AI, I do think there are some really key pieces of how the schools function that caregivers should be aware of. So there is a balance between reading 70 pages and acknowledging that you have at least skimmed the table of contents.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah, at a high level, this is the most important stuff you really need to know, that everybody needs to know, to be a member of the school community. versus a lot of the policies that like, you know, if you're never involved in any bullying incident, you don't have to read that stuff. Like, there's all kinds of things for which you are in there that you may never need to know. And so, I think it would be fine to ask them to sign off on a few pages, five pages, even maybe 10 pages that you've read that. But it's starting to feel like our, you know, every time we upgrade our iPhone software, we, yes, I agree to the 780 pages that nobody other Some people on the internet have read. So, we can do better than Apple and Google and all those folks. So, anyways.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So, it will be tabled? We'll work on the pieces of feedback that I have, that the district has received from everyone and then present again with the updates? Okay.
[Paul Ruseau]: Sure. Motion to table the handbooks to the next one or the meeting after that one? meeting after that one.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I would appreciate that just because I think we'll need a little bit of time.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah so I'll the June 8th meeting.
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to table to the June 8th meeting by member Rousseau. Is there a second by member Reinfeld? Member Ruseau you call the roll.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member Parks. Yes. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Langevin. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. Okay. On to number five, a recommendation to approve the updated language for the MPS restraint policy and our bullying prevention and intervention plan by Joan Bowen, our director of student services. Oh, hold on. Let's see if I can do that. I don't know why I can't turn on your microphone. Hold on one second.
[Joan Bowen]: There we go. Thank you. Good evening. Tonight I am presenting two updates to current Medford Public Schools policies that require this body's approval. So the first one is the bullying prevention and intervention plan. Currently the district is in the process of completing their self-assessment for the integrated monitoring review and they look at civil rights criteria. And in my review of that criteria, there is some language that is missing that DESE is looking for in order for us to get a proficient rating and that we're meeting this requirement. So the first thing that I wanted to update was the label which says categories of vulnerable students. The paragraph listed under there where it says, as required by Mass General Law, this is already found in the Behavior Intervention Plan on page four. But what I would like to do is have that added again to page eight under the decisions and findings, but also to add this specific language that says, this plan shall afford all students the same protection regardless of their status under the law. as required by Mass General Law, the IEP team or 504 accommodation team must consider what should be included in the plan to develop the student's skills and proficiencies to avoid and respond to bullying, harassment, or teasing if the student's disability affects social skills or makes the student vulnerable. So I'd like to add that language to page eight, and that basically will bring us into compliance with what DESE is requiring for the bullying prevention and intervention plan. And then the next part, which I apologize, it's very lengthy, which I provided to you, but this is the new updated restraint law. There are revised restraint requirements. This update, which I've included in your packet, was drafted in reviewing the new regulations from DESE, but also we had our special education legal counsel provide us with some documents and some language to use when rolling this out and this is coming out, it's effective August 17th of this year. So the first thing is, I do apologize, the policy is lengthy because many of the required procedures are included or referenced. These are not required to be part of the policy but provide a structure and process for school staff and administration to follow. Much of the language around definitions, the use and reporting of restraint is the same. The changes focus on distinguishing seclusion from timeout, the prerequisites required to use emergency seclusion or prone restraint, and the new requirements for any physical space used for timeout. and the requirement to have a grievance procedure. So the chart that I provided that says new restraint law requirements, I basically laid out what the previous practice was and what the current practice, or what the practice will be starting in August 17th of 2026. Definitions that weren't clear are very clear in this document. We have been working with our staff at the Missituk School, our therapeutic learning program, about the rollout of this, what it's going to look like, as well as the documents that go along with this. So once this is, we hope to have everything prepared by the end of the school year, so when we start in September, everything will be up and running, staff will be trained, and all the documents will be updated and ready to go.
[Jessica Parks]: Member Parks. Thank you. I have just two questions about the new policy. One can you clarify and I know this is part of the law. What. How do you get. parental consent for seclusion. If it cannot be included in the IEP and you need parental consent through a signature of a parent. What is that process?
[Joan Bowen]: So we're in the process of creating those documents. We do have guidance from DESE of what the language should include. If we do not receive parental permission, we cannot use seclusion. And that is not a practice that the district currently uses at this time. Nor, in my opinion, is something that we should do. Seclusion is a student's locked in a room, not allowed to leave. That's not a therapeutic methodology that I would like staff to be using.
[Jessica Parks]: Perfect. So then, what have you been using currently at the Mississippi?
[Joan Bowen]: So we currently have a timeout room, and we also have a sensory room. And at this time, sometimes students need a break and are given Adults provide them with that choice. Sometimes students are asking to take a break. They may go into the timeout room, but a lot of students are choosing the sensory room as well. And then once they're regulated, they're ready to go back to class, they return to class.
[Jessica Parks]: OK, thank you. And then my last question is, in terms of documenting timeout, I know it's not a requirement by the state to notify parents, similar to how it is a requirement for seclusion. I know it also says it's optional but recommended in our policy. Is there a way that we can kind of make that more of a norm or actually required practice?
[Joan Bowen]: So we do notify parents if that was to happen. But that's also one of the documents that we're looking at. And we are required to document the restraints and upload that to DESE on a yearly basis. And I have to review them all. I have to go through, you know, if we see the same student all the time, like that's a bigger discussion with staff about what we need to do differently for this student. But we will be notifying parents if this happens.
[Jessica Parks]: Great. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld? Can you, for the update to the bullying prevention and intervention policy, can you clarify the relationship between differentiating characteristics and this last sentence about the disability? The disability is one of the differentiating characteristics? Is that what's happening? I kind of see two sections, categories of vulnerable students.
[Joan Bowen]: Yes, so it could be one or more of those characteristics, so race, color, religion, homelessness, academic, it could be one of.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Right, so how does that, how does that section starting there and then ending with this plan shall afford all students the same protection regardless of their status under the law. How does that connect to the next section about developing skills and proficiencies if the disability affects social skills?
[Joan Bowen]: So we have to, on the ed plan, there's a section that you have to look at the student's disability and if they're vulnerable to bullying and what a plan would be put into place for them. This is just ensuring that that process is being followed, so if a student
[Erika Reinfeld]: Would that be followed, would then that be followed if it were a differentiating characteristic that was not a disability?
[Joan Bowen]: I don't believe so. I think this is based on a disability, and that's why the IEP or the 504 team is responding in that manner. Because I'm thinking of things like gender support plans and bullying support. I think this is specific to the... Okay, so these are just two separate paragraphs. But there would be protections put into place for any of those characteristics.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, it all reads as one paragraph, so I was trying to figure out how they connected, but they are in fact separate. Yeah, we could separate them. That would be helpful. I might have been the only one confused, but thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions? Is there a motion to approve?
[Paul Ruseau]: Motion to approve.
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve by Member Ruseau. Is there a second? Seconded by Member Parks. Member Ruseau, will you please call the roll?
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastobone. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member Parks. Yes. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Ruseau, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes.
[Joan Bowen]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, on to item number six, we have an MSBA update, which will be a little bit of a tag team effort. Our project team is on Zoom if we have questions for them as well. But I just wanted to lead it off and let you all know that Shortly after our last building committee meeting, we did receive feedback from the MSBA on our PDP submission. So I'm going to ask Dr. Galussi to talk a little bit about the feedback on the educational plan that we received, and then there's a handful of other things that I can address once she has done that and our team is on the phone if we need them.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you, and just to clarify, this is an update about the educational plan, not the last meeting? Correct. Okay. So we have, the district has been working diligently, collaboratively with school leaders as well as central office leaders to work through the comments that the MSBA gave us around the educational plan. A lot of the comments were specifically asking for enhanced clarification around how we intend to use the space, how we intend our schedule to run, how we intend to educate students in particular spaces. A lot of, I would, I would just say that a lot of the comments in partnership with Dr. Talbot, with Principal Cabral, as well as some of the directors, really just highlighted the educational shifts that we are making and that we are going to see implemented now as well as in a future building. Some of the comments also spoke to beyond the high school, some of the spaces that we are, that are currently in Medford High School that we need to, that we are accounting for as we've Highlighted several times, Medford High School is not only a comprehensive high school that includes currently 15 CTE programs, but will include 19 at the opening of this school, but it also has a lot of community facing elements to it. We have our welcome Center our registration we have our municipal daycare daycare kids corner that services our school employees city employees and some of our students as needed. We also have the Medford family network. housed right now in Medford High School. And some of the questions asked for some specificity around the reason for the co-location of our Welcome Center, which is our registration center, along with Medford Family Network. And pieces like that are quite easy to talk about. We have worked really hard the past couple years to be very intentional about how we're welcoming families to Medford Public Schools when they first enter the district, and very intentional about the positionality and the location of some of those family-facing supports and departments when they first enter Medford Public Schools. So the location of our welcome center, which is our registration office, is adjacent to the Miss Bowen's office to the nursing department to our EL department to our transportation office, as well as to Medford family network, and that provides a lot of support and services for our incoming families. Being able to provide the specificity around the intention and the why was really important for the educational plan. I would say that we also were able to. Provide an update to the MSBA through this process. We had our last or the April 27 SBC the school building committee meeting. We did make a couple of recommendations the district made a couple of recommendations. To the space summary which we were able to clarify in the educational plan and so just really briefly the work that the district took in looking at the space summary we we kind of had a three hour approach. So we looked at redundancies in the space summary. We looked for opportunities to repurpose in the space summary and we looked for opportunities where reductions were necessary. We wanted to make sure that our decisions were farthest away from students. And so we took an approach to really looking at reducing office space because we're prioritizing collaboration which means we are prioritizing conference rooms, which would be the vehicle to get work done, not maintaining private office space. We also took an approach to looking at what are the redundancies and what are the places that we could repurpose. We don't know necessarily what education is going to look like 25 years from now. 10 years from now, maybe even 50 years from now. So it's very important to have spaces that are going to be flexible and grow with the changing needs of the community. So looking at spaces in which we could be the most flexible to do that. Just a high level example would be in the space summary. There were two maker spaces in the space summary. We felt that maintaining one for the purpose of what that is intended but retitling it an innovation lab would serve the purpose of maintaining that space for. flexibility so that teachers could rent out that space, students could use that space. It could be used for a lot of project-based learning. It could be used for a lot of even clubs or enrichments or extracurriculars. And then taking the other maker space to use it as the digital photo lab. That also allowed for some flexibility so that we are maintaining the increase and expansion of our arts program, but we are also being very mindful of maybe reducing that space and being flexible with other spaces. If I were to maybe call out another one, it would be in addition, so we also had a conversation about looking at the seats in the auditorium. And so we have a range here of what MSBA will pay for and what would really be beneficial to our auditorium space. As we know, there are a lot of spaces across the city that are minimal. It's very difficult to have multi-use spaces. The auditorium is one. Right now, if we're counting seats that actually, work and aren't broken. It's somewhere about 300, 330 maybe. But what we had decided and what we have reflected in this is to really look at what it would be to have that range, what would it be to have an auditorium that has 500 seats, 750 seats, which is the cap for MSBA, 800 seats, and 1,000 seats. We've had a lot of conversations around the intimacy. of performance space but also the capacity of what the principal needs to be able to have larger spaces to gather grade levels of students and this plan is written for 1395 students and so making sure that we could at least get two classes of students in the auditorium for the principal is very beneficial to overall programming and the high school needs. One thing I do want to call out since I mentioned it at the meeting but it is a public meeting and I do want to mention because I think I made some confusing remarks in our recommendation, and I just want to call it out that one of the things that was also listed in the space summary is we've asked for a review through this process for some of the CTE spaces. So right now, and this is part of the work, there are within the shops, a lot of the shops call for bathrooms, dressing rooms, um, adjoining classroom space as well as office space. So we are also in a review process with our project team to see if we need all four of those spaces in order to meet student needs. In addition to that, there are some toileting, there are some programs and some spaces in the space summary that call for individual toilets. One of the things we had conversations about, um, internally was making sure that there are some of the specialized programs that maintain toilets within the classroom. For example, the project transition and the access classroom, it is very important for the functioning of those classrooms to have toilets or bathrooms within the programs. But some of our other programs, so long as there are adjacent bathrooms or toilets, in what's called the grossing factor, but just in the hallway is sufficient. We are not reducing accessible toilets. This was just kind of calling out specialized programming. I could probably talk for a very long time about the comments made and the updates that we've had in the past couple weeks, and happy to answer any questions specifically, or Member Graham, if you think I've left some key highlights out.
[Jenny Graham]: On the ed plan, I think two, maybe two things to flag. One is the MSBA sends these comments in a letter, and we are preparing a response via that letter to them, which will go to them this week. And then as part of PSR, any of those comments will be fed into the ed plan, and that's likely to come back here for review and approval of the broader educational plan in its updated fashion that integrates all of these things going forward. So there's like a two-part process there. One, we'll go to MSBA this week, and we're on track. The project team and the district administration has been working on all of that. I would say the other thing that was salient about the feedback from MSBA in their commentary was that they wanted some clarity around Medford's understanding that certain programs are outside the scope of what MSBA will reimburse for. So MFN is a good example of that. And so we just had to simply acknowledge, yes, we know that that is not something that would be eligible for reimbursement. But they also sort of framed that they wanted there to be clearer costing of some of those options so that if you wanted to take a narrow view of what the project will cost, you could. So if you wanted to say, what does just 9 to 12 look like, you could do that in our next round of costing. So that sort of coincidentally was almost exactly what we outlined and approved at our building committee meeting in the middle of April anyway. That was already sort of well in hand and their feedback didn't have to like interrupt the cost estimating that was going on and will be shared with the building committee on Wednesday of this week. But just really like an attempt to sort of clear to clearly outline like these are things that exist in the building today. These are things that are 9 to 12. These are things that. our community based programs, et cetera, et cetera, just so that there's a little bit, it's just a little bit easier to like read and digest. And so the MSBA had very similar feedback to what the building committee voted on at our last meeting in April. And so that's already well in hand and we'll talk about that. About parallel to all of this conversation DCR made us aware of a deed restriction on the property that the project team was previously unaware of and that deed restriction. is a restriction for 999 years that restricts the city of Medford from building anything really but recreation and access roads on those pieces of property. Specifically that deals with the back part of Edgerly Field and the football practice field down along the side of the building. We did share that out with the community at our community forum last week because it has made its way into the ether with lots of misinformation and speculation about what happens next. So we felt like we had to correct the record and make sure that the project team is really the source of information and input about that deed restriction. So yes, in fact, there is a deed restriction. Yes, in fact, it does impede three of the designs and what we will review with the building committee on Wednesday night are some adjustments to the designs that would clear us of that restriction in whole so we would not be, our timeline would not be impeded. Also simultaneously the state delegation has been super responsive and helpful as has DCR in understanding what options exist if we wanted to lift, move, replace the deed restriction in any way, shape, or form. And we did get confirmation today that the answer for any sort of change to that deed restriction would be an Article 97 process, which is not a short process. So the building committee will consider on Wednesday night whether we want to pursue those or adopt some of the revised design options that would keep two of the three options in play. And we'll see where the building committee sort of falls on that. But all of that is happening at the same time as we are talking about how this oversight happened, who is responsible for the oversight, and to make sure that the city of Medford's interests are protected. So all of that is also going on at the same time. And resolution to that is complicated. and ongoing and probably is not likely to be the source of any sort of resolution by Wednesday night because there's lots of there's lots of parties involved in that conversation. So what we are going to try to do on Wednesday night is make sure that The building committee is clear and aware of the deed restriction and my apologies to the building committee that we were not able to meet before this news sort of made its way into the public conversation because it's certainly always the project team's intention that the building committee knows these things first, but also to give the building committee some options for a path forward. And there are a handful of options which include some reorienting of the buildings in the two C options that we've carried forward to completely steer clear of those restrictions and still preserve a no modular posture, which We were worried was not going to be possible. So all of that is coming on Wednesday night with additional costing information and some, you know, some revision to costing based on the space reductions that have been made, based on updated assumptions, based on all of this like new latest information and in a sort of more comprehensive top to bottom fashion. So there's one place and source for that information. I think that is everything in terms of what I wanted to update you all on, but I did want to open up the floor in case people had questions. Member Einfeld?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes. Did the MSBA request specific changes to the educational plan? I know you said you're in the process of responding and that it will likely come back to us. Is it possible for us to see what those changes were since we did approve this plan as a body?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I mean, we can certainly share with this body the response that sort of frames, like, the answers to their questions, which I think would give you a better orientation of, like, what's to come in the ed plan. I wouldn't say that anything they did requested a change to the ed plan. That's really not the MSBA's, like, goal in any of this. They asked questions about things that were maybe unclear or newer, like our schedule is evolving, so they had questions about that. I think the project team's opinion so far has been that cleaning that up will change the ed plan in so much as it's clarifying. here's where we were, here's where we are now, here's where we plan to be by the time we have a new high school. So that will change in the ed plan, but it's not, they didn't come back and say, we disagree with your ed plan. That's sort of not the goal of their comments. The goal of their comments is more to match, to make sure that the space matches the ed plan. And the other thing that they had questions about was like Medford Academy. where Medford Academy is a new program. It's new since our statement of interest. It's new since our eligibility documents. And so I think they were seeking clarity around like, does this exist now? Or is it something you hope to do in the future so we can answer that question? And then I think that will satisfy things. Seems totally reasonable. Yeah the comments actually overall like I actually pulled Salem High School's documents to say even for myself like how does what we received compare to what other communities receive at this stage in the game and it was very comparable. That's great.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And I'm also actually very glad to hear that we are. I really love that the building committee did this in the last meeting to say what are options A B C D for the auditorium. So I appreciate I know it's really hard to look at things in isolation and to But I think that's really helpful in thinking about well if we don't do this as part of this project what does that mean and how does it affect what some other plan is which I know is also hard to quantify because you're talking about renovating an old building and turning it into. a preschool like the toilets like that retrofitting is not your typical oh yes just bringing it up to code. So I appreciate that any ability we have to make those decisions. I do want to on record just express disappointment that this deed restriction got past that in that feasibility. It's upsetting that this wasn't caught and we're moving on, that's the important part, but I just think it's important to say that it's really unfortunate because I think it caused a lot of consternation. And then my question around that is if the building committee recommends trying to get that lifted, does MSBA, does the process have a pause button that would allow for something like this or no?
[Jenny Graham]: I think we would have to be in conversation with the MSBA. They are aware of the deed restriction. As soon as we became aware of it, we let them know, which is what we're required to do. I think this stuff is fairly common for them in their world. It feels like a really big surprise for us, and I think it is, but I think big surprises happen on these kinds of projects all the time. So they understood sort of what we were doing and the steps we were taking. If we had to, if we, well, if the building committee wanted to proceed with an option that would require an Article 97, there probably is a timeline. impact to that that we would have to work through with MSBA because the question is really about sequence of events and how done does that process have to be before you can start designing a building, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that would be a pretty collaborative conversation for us to have to have.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay. And I will say I'm very encouraged that the project team was able to spring into action and create some new designs. Me too. So as disappointed as I am that this happened, I have been impressed with the response of notifying and moving forward and looking at options, not catastrophizing and just really putting heads down and figuring out what solutions were. So I want to thank everyone involved with that. And that's it from me, at least for now.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions from the committee? Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. You know, one of the things about the Article 97, first of all, they are very common, and they have a very high pass rate. They have to go through the legislature. And one of the things I think we need to get a really solid understanding of is, Is there sort of like an MO, a memorandum of understanding or something that can be done? No. So we would not be able to hire a construction manager to begin the project with the assumption that this will actually be done.
[Jenny Graham]: I think that's the question we would have to have conversation about. There is no MOA that's going to come forward that says, like, this is going to be fine. Article 97, I think, requires a two-thirds voice vote of the legislature. So I don't think anybody is willing ever to be like, yes, I will get two-thirds of the legislature to agree with this thing. So no, there will not be anything like that coming forward. We were able to confirm that today in our conversation with DCR. However, that doesn't mean that everything has to stop or that our CM couldn't come on board, but it would mean like if we needed to pursue one of those options, we would have to have some conversation with the MSBA. The Article 97 process is not inexpensive. It generally does take quite a long time, like moving really lightning fast is like four to six months. And then we you know we will bump into the legislative recess and all of those good things. So it'll be interesting to see what the building committee decides to do on Wednesday night. But there is a motion that was at least drafted so that the public could read it and digest it. That would. to actually formally take three options off the table and insert two options for consideration of these revised alternatives so that if the committee chooses to take that up there's some like notice in preparation for the community to participate in that.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions?
[Erika Reinfeld]: This might be a question for Wednesday. If the committee votes to put those two options, how does that affect the cost analysis that's happening now?
[Jenny Graham]: We confirmed today that the costing is equivalent because they are substantially the same designs as the 2C options were before. And so there's not a cost estimating concern. OK.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions from the committee? Member Master Boeing.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Briefly, who's managing the Article 97 process from Medford residents' perspective? Is that, who's responsible for that? It's the, you know, our consultants, the school building committee, the mayor's office. Like, you know, who's coordinating that? I understand, you know, we all want to be speaking with the same voice, marching in the same direction to get the legislature to get where we need them to. I guess that's my question. Who's leading the charge here?
[Jenny Graham]: That's actually a great question and the answer to that is not entirely like perfectly clear yet. So Article 97 the first thing that has to happen is you engage a land use attorney and they really help guide and shepherd the project through that process. And we're in the process of talking to several land use attorneys to formally bring somebody into that if we choose to go that route. But Article 97 does require things like land swaps, etc. So the city of Medford will have to be involved in that because this school committee nor the building committee own land. Those those parcel any parcel that might be involved would have to come from like a recommendation from the city. So That's why the land use attorney is so important, because there are a lot of tentacles. And the project team will have to be called on to do some things in terms of environmental impact. And then the city will be called upon to do things, and the building committee. So the land use attorney would really shepherd us through that process. And it would take all of us. But the process itself is... You know, it costs money on its own to even make the process happen because of all the moving parts.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: And the SBC chooses the attorney?
[Jenny Graham]: That's a great question. We would have to determine who the land use attorney works for and on behalf of. And if it's the city of Medford, I think I would need guidance to answer that question correctly. Not 100% clear.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Curious, but I'm sure we'll figure it out. Yeah. Let me know if you need help.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I could, Member Graham, to just say that a lot of the internal meetings that we've been having, especially as of late with all the issues we're dealing with. Member Graham, Dr. Galusi, and myself have been the ones meeting with the delegation, discussing the land use attorneys, and really collaborating to try to get through this difficult-ish time. And then I just also want to add that the PDT feedback and the responses that our consultants are working on are being provided to the MSBC committee on Wednesday. So I just ask that that be forwarded to the school committee so you also can read the full PDP responses from the MSBA, if you'd like, or throw it into AI and get a summary generated for you. Let's see the city's responses along with the school building committee.
[Jenny Graham]: Yep, we can send that along.
[Jessica Parks]: Member Parks. That actually was a little bit of my question. Would we be able to see those questions and responses and you had mentioned Salem and looking at those. Is the project team also said that these are you know in line with comments that they receive. in terms of just asking for these clarifications and kind of basically dotting your I's, crossing your T's, and really reinforcing what is said in kind of a, yes, this is what we mean kind of manner, if that's what I heard correctly, as you were saying.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, they have. I don't know if maybe that's better suited for Wednesday's meeting, but they're on the call, so I'm sure they'd be happy to answer that. I don't know, Jen or Matt Rice, if you would like to take a answer at that question.
[s093VSbtp08_SPEAKER_01]: Absolutely. This is Jen Carlson with left field. I'll start and then Matt, if you want to add any color. Yes, I would say these comments are typical for the PDP feedback that we receive from the MSBA. At this stage, we typically see them looking to clarify the ed plan since submitting with the PDP package is the first time that they're seeing the ed plan and reviewing it. to start asking some of their questions. All of the questions that we've seen in there are really in line with what we see across projects, looking for clarification on schedule and new programs, just as Dr. Galusi had outlined. Matt Rice.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, I can also just add that we did share, I'm sorry, Matt Rice with SMMA. I can add that we shared with Dr. Talbot and Dr. Galussi as we were going through sort of coordinating the process, the response comments that came from our Lexington High School project. our Wakefield Memorial High School project, and all the way back to our Waltham High School project. And I think those consistently showed that the comments that Medford received were very much in line with comments that the MSBA has made consistently throughout at this stage of the project development. So it was good to see that commonality. And I also appreciated hearing Jenny's comments about the Salem High School comments being in alignment as well. I think there's consistency in terms of how the MSBA is providing guidance and feedback here at this stage.
[Jessica Parks]: Great. Thank you. And then my second one with you all here on this, if you could confirm what my thinking would be in terms of the CM. This is kind of to respond to you, Member Ruseau's. The Article 97 and the CM at risk model would kind of be completely at odds with each other because the CM at risk model coming in when there's so much unknown would really lead to a wildly out of touch costing from a CM at risk. Would that be kind of your thought process or could they kind of help with that process in any way, shape or form if they came in earlier?
[s093VSbtp08_SPEAKER_01]: Do you mind if I respond to that, Member Graham?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, please do.
[s093VSbtp08_SPEAKER_01]: All right. So we would, at this stage, if the SBC does decide to move forward with an Article 97 process, that process would be, a timeline for that process would be built out. We would, as Member Graham stated, we would be in close talks with the MSBA. to make sure that timeline works out. The article 97 process is at least a known concept and process that can be scheduled out. It would not be the first project that we worked on that an article 97 process is happening while the CM is brought on during the tail end of schematic design for our project. In fact, it's helpful to get their early buy-in and involvement so that they can weigh in on things around logistics and phasing of some of that work. And I'm sure SMMA, if you want to add to any color, I'm sure you've seen the same
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, no, Jen, I think that's an accurate description of sort of the value that the CM can add as part of the process if they were to come on board now, but it could also go in the other direction as well. And we could wait. I think there's, we can be a little agnostic in terms of the CM at this point in the process. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions from the committee? Member Lopate?
[Aaron Olapade]: Yes, it's more of a comment, actually. I think, as members have mentioned, and I think I can agree that it's a deeply frustrating instance of this occurring, and I'd like to know more. And I, as many have noted, like online, and Member Graham mentioned, you know, there's a spread of unintentional misinformation or just, you know, misunderstanding about what's going on because we're learning about it all in real time. I just implore members of the community, members of the building committee, just anyone who's interested to reach out to our team to better understand what's going on. We hold office hours, left field does on Fridays. We have our community forum, our building community meetings, our school community meetings. I just think it's a really important time, especially as we're going to move through this process and better understand what to do next. It's in our best interest as a community to stay committed to this work because it's deeply important to all of us individually. And I think as a collective, and I just don't want us fall into our more negative attitudes, because I think that I'm feeling very frustrated just because this is very, very disappointing. It's many years of work that we've been putting in, and to have it stalled like this is incredibly frustrating. So I think I just ask that everyone stay together on this. So thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Member Lopatti. Are there any other questions from the committee? Okay, all right, well, we will be moving on. We don't have any continued business. We do have one item of new business offered by myself and member Lopate. Whereas the Medford Public Schools Project Transition Program serves students ages 18 to 22 with disabilities and is intended to prepare them for employment independence and full participation in adult life. And whereas evidence-based transition practice shows access to meaningful community-based work experience is a key predictor of successful post-high school employment outcomes. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford School Committee request the superintendent and the administration to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the current Project transition program and recommend improvements to assure alignment with best practices and transition services. Be it further resolved that this assessment shall evaluate the program's effectiveness in providing community based real world work experiences, including pathways to paid and competitive employment. Supporting individualized student needs and transition planning aligned with student goals. Tracking data on placements, paid employment, and post exit outcomes. Engaging students and families in planning and expectations. Be it further resolved that the administration shall present its findings, recommendations, including any proposed programmatic staffing or resource changes to the school committee by December 2026. And be it finally resolved that the Medford school committee affirms its commitment to ensuring all students in the project transition program leave with the skills and experience necessary to successfully enter the workforce and adult life. Member Lopate and I have been working with some of our CPAC families for the last year or so. I think we heard from them on the heels of the successful override and they are very interested in making sure that the students that CPAC represents are sort of at the front of our mind when we're thinking about programming and that kind of thing. And most recently they reached out to both of us to talk about project transitions and specifically wanting to understand how to advocate for an increase in opportunities for students in the project transition program specifically as it relates to employment opportunities. So, Member Lopate and I had a brief conversation, but really this work belongs with the administration. So this is sort of us trying to frame for you all the ask and the excitement of the community for support in investigating what's possible for our students here in Medford. Member Lopate, did you want to say anything else?
[Aaron Olapade]: Thank you. Yeah, to double on what Member Graham said, I think that one of the most important things in our community is our PAC groups across all the schools. Our CPAC and our LPAC especially are the ones that I've taken a special working group, working attitude towards. And I think that they've asked things of us, and I think it's really important that we're maintaining our commitment to them. It's really challenging, especially when the services that their students and their advocated individuals need aren't always as available to them as they would hope. And so I think this was just a commitment to making sure that we're working towards properly securing those opportunities for these students to the best of our ability and understanding the pathways to doing that. I think it's just something that we say we want to do and it's hard enough as is as a parent with students who have differing needs to find those opportunities because they're not always readily available. And I think as a district we want to make that commitment and make them readily available, so.
[Jenny Graham]: I think we may have somebody in the waiting room of the Zoom that may want to speak on this issue. So I just want to give her a minute to get signed in. Is there any other, are there questions or comments from the committee? And is there anybody in the public who would like to speak? Just to recap, we had some folks just joining us and we reviewed the resolution that is on the school committee agenda asking the administration to do an assessment of the project transition program and specifically the work that the program does around meaningful employment and job placement. If you would like to say something and you're on Zoom, you can just use the raise hand feature and then we can unmute you. Patricia Cherry, Will will unmute you. And if you could give us your name and address for the record, that'd be great.
[Patricia Chery]: Sorry, I'm in the car, I'm having technical difficulties. Patricia Cherry, 20 Wellesley Street, Medford Mass.
[Jenny Graham]: Did you have a comment that you'd like to provide us?
[Patricia Chery]: Well, I just, I would really like to express that myself and many of the parents in the city of Medford whose kids attend these programs or will be attending this program are very, what's the word? Not very happy with the support that this program receives. And I think that this is something that needs immediate attention and it should be at the top of a list of a priority list. Um, so I just want to once again say, you know, this, this is really, really important. Um, we're doing meetings, we're trying to get things going and we really need support in this area. It's been asked before. Um, and some of the things that have taken place over the past two weeks, um, with the jobs that, you know, did not go to this program that we felt should have been offered to this program and would have been a benefit to this program were not, we weren't thought of. So that's basically my comment is that I really, really, really need you guys to help with supporting this program. It's part of the Medford public school system. Um, our kids deserve the same paths that every other child in the method public school system gets. It should be no different. It shouldn't look any different, and it shouldn't have less support given to it. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Patricia. Are there any other questions or comments about this resolution? Dr. Lizzie? Thank you.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I just wanted to mention we, of course, are happy to do a review, look into this. I would say, I think, even just for increased communication and awareness for this committee, as well as the community, would be very beneficial. I know for project transition, there is a lot of work that's done to make sure that students are exposed. But engaging in the review, I think, will be very helpful. And happy to get that done by next December. I do know that Ms. Bowen with Ms. Clinton one of the secondary special education coordinators had kind of had this on their to do list to begin to begin in the fall. So it's kind of timely for us here in the district. But I think the clarity and greater detail will be important for the community. Great.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld? Yep, just I think in hearing what Ms. Terry had to say, I would be really interested, I would be interested to know as part of this to understand how the school is working with city opportunities and explicitly what that relationship looks like.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, I do know that there I don't want to speak for Ms. Bowen, and I don't know the intricacies, so this would be like a learning opportunity for me as well, but I do know that Medford does engage in Project Triangle. Medford has a dedicated position within project transition that does this job of working with students for opportunities within the community. But I think like I said a review of what we are currently offering as well as just maybe having our communication be more broad and clarified is also an important part of this review. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions? Is there a motion to approve? Motion approved by Member Lopate, seconded by Member Reinfeld. Member Soph, you can call the roll.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastraboni. Yes. Member Lopate. Yes. Member Reinfeld? Yes. Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Langelker?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. We do not have any requested reports and we don't have any condolences this week. Our next regular meeting is June 1st at Howard Alden Memorial Chambers in Medford City Hall and on Zoom. In addition to our building committee meeting, which is hybrid format, on Wednesday evening at 630, which is at the Medford High School Library and on Zoom. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn by Member Reinfeld, seconded by? Seconded by Member Mastroboni. Member Ruseau, if you can call the roll.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member Parks. Yes. Member Reinfeld. Member Ruseau. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
|
total time: 29.86 minutes total words: 2081 |
total time: 6.1 minutes total words: 690 |
total time: 0.96 minutes total words: 80 |
total time: 1.97 minutes total words: 271 |
|
total time: 9.13 minutes total words: 951 |
total time: 2.52 minutes total words: 202 |
||