Vote: MPS Additional Funding Update

Transcript (~25 min @ 13:10)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 13:00 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Very good. Seeing no more questions, we'll move on to the last item on our agenda, which is the very happy challenge of exploring some additional Melrose Public Schools funding. We're going to look at this through two lenses, so a couple of decisions need to be made. One is whether to accept the money from the City of Melrose, and that would be one discussion. And then the next would be how we would like to see that money deployed. Whether you want to make that decision now or at a future date would be included in that discussion. So, I would certainly invite the superintendent and/or Deputy Superintendent Kelley to speak to that. Thank you.

▶ 13:49 Speaker 4: Sure. I can start off. So the memo captures that there's two adjustments to the categories that were approved on April 14. We with our partners on the MEU side to settle those three contracts, are able to realign those salary

▶ 14:10 Speaker 5: adjustments for FY27 into the categories,

▶ 14:11 Speaker 4: as well as very appreciative the city is

▶ 14:17 Speaker 5: appropriating an additional $332,180 of Chapter 70 money to the school. So those updated categories reflect both of those things, the salary information for the CBAs into their categories, as well as the additional Chapter 70 revenue. So consideration tonight for school committee to increase the budget from the $53,937,000 to the $54,269,000. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have with regard to either of those.

▶ 14:45 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Very good. And I think we all express appreciation to the mayor and her administration for allotting us the opportunity to accept this money in service to our students. So any additional questions for Mr. or any questions for Mr. Kelley?

▶ 15:07 Speaker 6: Seeing none, motion to approve. Or do you have a question, Mr. Hartman?

▶ 15:10 Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I just wanted to highlight the updated memo includes a couple of... So our first motion is to accept the funds. Accept the money- Great. And we can get into the details of the- ... writ large. Sure. I'll save my questions for later. Thank you. Okay. Very good.

▶ 15:25 Speaker 1: Mr. Kelley. Motion to accept the funds.

▶ 15:28 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Motion to accept by Chair Kelley. Seconded- ... motion by Ms. Leo. Any further discussion or questions? Seeing none, all in favor? Opposed? That motion carries unanimously with one absent. And as noted, this packet document was updated today with some additional information. I would certainly invite the superintendent and Mr. Kelley to speak to that.

▶ 15:56 Speaker 5: Sure. So I can start. So from the additional funding that you just accept, that a little bit over $332,000, we are requesting that the allocation be directed into two categories. So we would ask for the amount of $140,000 to go into the secondary category, and the remaining $192,180 to go into the administrative/district-wide category. If we want to dive a little deeper into that in where we would look to maybe restore or do something different, we would be looking to restore and almost recreate what was once the director of visual and performing arts. So we would call that an arts and activities coordinator, dedicated to leadership, fiscal oversight, curricular alignment for visual performing arts, their student programming, and also some other singleton departments that don't fall directly under either the STEM or the humanities director. So it would create a middle layer for all of our disciplines before they get to Melanie Acevedo and central admin. So it would put a director in front of a number of people. That would be a K through 12 director, in this case, where our humanities and our STEM directors are currently six through 12. We did identify this need for this position in the budget planning process, but it could not be returned or restored in any way given the 17 positions through the override, which we are so glad. I think we were talking earlier today, and I think Ms. Acevedo's going to probably highlight it a little bit as well. We'd be having such different discussions right now if we didn't have an override, so I'll just continue to thank the community for that. But our focus was really on prioritizing our class sizes, returning the middle school to the team model, and ensuring that we could put as many educators, like boots on the ground, in front of that. And with that then comes our high-quality curriculum materials that we're going to in our math curriculum and our UFLY pilot, and there's a lot of work that needs to be done. As you guys all know, I'm a big fan of educating the whole child. I've said that numerous times. I think this really rounds out our other piece. We know that we have children who come to school for arts, for drama, for theater, and then their academics are secondary, but they need that piece to keep them engaged, and I think that's really important. The memo did also outline how this position is tied to four out of our five key goals outlined in our strategic plan. I won't get into those right now. And then second, after that, outside of the secondary budget, we look at the district-wide budget and some additional allocation of funding there. We are certainly considering the reinstatement of the bridge position, which is currently titled as the Director of Volunteers. We know that our schools do really well when our community is actively engaged, and reinstating this role does align with our strategic goals. Building connections between adults and our students, leveraging our community assets, and enrich the real-world experience of our students. So, in addition to that, we also, with our new settling of our new contracts, we do have some additional mandatory contractual obligations that we would hope that this funding can meet. And then also the possibility of any new curriculum that needed to come in, although I think we've covered most of our bases, just want to ensure that we are meeting the needs of all of our students. And I'll just continue to say that this additional funding, the $330,000, we continue to use the word stabilize. So this would continue just to stabilize our schools and to help us really round out what we see and the needs of all of our students. So, I don't know if I missed anything.

▶ 20:08 Speaker 4: No, I think that was--

▶ 20:10 Speaker 5: And we'd be happy to answer any questions that maybe you have. Yeah.

▶ 20:12 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: I just have a clarifying question. So, I think you've laid out your proposal nicely. When you say at the top of page three, we are considering reinstatement, is that a proposal and included in the funding, or is that separate? I got confused by the words considering reinstatement.

▶ 20:32 Speaker 5: Oh, sorry. Yes. So that would be part of our proposed- Oh, okay. Yes. It is. Okay. Yeah. I guess all of this, I was taking it all as consideration as we move through this process. Yeah. Okay, perfect.

▶ 20:42 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Questions for the superintendent or Mr. Kelley on this proposal?

▶ 20:50 Jen Grigoraitis: Mayor Grigoris. Thank you. Not a question, just a comment. I'm really thrilled to see this kind of judicious and thoughtful distribution of the funds. I know this is front of mind for all of us, but we are one of few districts that is currently in the position we are in right now, which is being stable and actually having money that we are not making cuts. So I want to continue to see that as such a wonderful thing for us. I, too, am very grateful for the community, and so I think being able to bring back this director of visual and performing arts, which we know is very impactful in the community, but also one of the things we did when we were making cuts was add fees for our theater program. We now have hundreds of families that are paying a fee for that program. And we didn't reduce that fee, so to then be bringing back some support feels like a much nicer balance than how we've currently left things. So I'm really thrilled to see that. I know that our role is just to put money in the categories. Your role is to make decisions on how to manage the district. I'm very appreciative as a manager on the city side of how diligent you have been about that and really thoughtful about what it is that we need holistically in order to meet the needs of our students and our employees and our families. And I just wanted to caveat, I know the pending need with the bridge is that we need to renegotiate an MOU that has been allowed to lapse, so that we're, again, managing everyone that we're bringing into our building in a thoughtful and equitable way. So I'm grateful for this proposal. I know it's a great thing to have extra money. I also know it got thrown at you at very late in the game after a very thorough budget process. So thank you both for working so thoughtfully and quickly with myself and with Carrie Golden. So I'm just thrilled to see this.

▶ 22:32 Speaker 5: And I'll just add onto that. So thank you for bringing that up, that we would need to do an MOA if we were moving forward with the bridge position similarly, and it is outlined in the memo, and I did not highlight this. The position of an arts and activities director would also fall under Teamsters. So that also has to be negotiated through them. That does not exist in their current contract, and so we would have to do negotiations and do some different pieces before we can move forward with a hire on that.

▶ 23:05 Speaker 2: Ms. Leo. Also not a question, but gratitude, and a comment about appreciation for, as Mayor Grigoris said, being able to invest here in these positions, but also in your diligence in describing the connection to priorities and the strategy. That these are not just positions that are being added back, but that we are making intentional decisions to add back to support the needs of the district and the strategy that is already in place, and that you named the alignment with priorities that you wished you could have supported, is what I read, if we had more money and more positions available. So appreciated the continued connection that you outlined here.

▶ 23:52 Speaker 6: Additional comments?

▶ 23:55 Speaker 4: Just briefly, another point of gratitude as well. And I think these are really important considerations to have in moving forward with the money. I think earlier in their packet, we had the work that the bridge does and outlined kind of the work that's been there. I think most or many of our outreach updates tend to be about activities that the performing and visual arts director would be involved in. We are constantly hearing about the value that that brings to the community and to the schools. So I think these are really great places to focus attention with this additional money. And thank you to the mayor as well for bringing it forward so quickly, knowing that it's a process every year.

▶ 24:35 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Additional comments or questions? I will take the opportunity to ask a couple of questions here. I appreciate the thought that went into this. I have a lot of concerns about mathematics. I think the report that we're going to hear tonight from Ms. Acevedo speaks very Seriously to district-wide macro stagnation, to beginning of year and end of year grade eight math, which declined.

▶ 25:10 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: At MHS, grade 10 math proficiency finished the year at 15%. So I pretty strongly believe that visual and performing arts are absolutely critical to our district. I think we could achieve many of the goals of the whole child. With the structure we have now, ideal, it is not even close. I think our kids have to learn mathematics, and I'm frustrated in a good way and believe that all students need a proficiency in mathematics. And I think a lot of the data, and Ms. Acevedo, I would look to you to correct me, but around high-dose tutoring and curriculum materials and teacher training and individual outreach and dedicated targeted student interventions around mathematics are critical to what happens to students as they continue on their trajectory when they leave us. If they are not adequately prepared in mathematics, how are we sure they're going to be successful in college, or as successful as they could be? This does not speak to our wonderful teachers or anything else. It is not uncommon, I would say, anywhere in the state to have these struggles with mathematics in middle school and high school. But I think that is a must-have. So thinking about nice-to-haves and must-haves, I think it's great to have visual and performing arts, and I appreciate how that's tied into our strategic plan. But if our strategic plan doesn't include core subjects like English and mathematics, then I think we're not supporting our students in some of those critically foundational ways. The other thing is that I'm very concerned, as we discussed before, about federal grants and hiring a person as opposed to putting in some targeted interventions, like one that maybe one-time funds could be used for, gives us some cushion that would be helpful. And the other piece of that is coming up, we're going to deal with early childhood legislation and graduation requirement legislation. I know I have a lot of concerns around unfunded mandates and determining how are we going to, if everything isn't funded, because I think our world is hard enough when we make financial decisions, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in the state legislature right now staring down the barrel of federal challenges and the many competing priorities around housing, healthcare, and so many other issues. So I'm very concerned about being a little too ambitious in this area before we're 100% sure we're targeting those core subjects that lead to having kids follow their passions in many areas, not just STEM, but in life. So that is why I appreciate the bridge. I think that's very important. I certainly support the mandatory contractual obligations. We have made a commitment to our Units A, B, and C, and I would fully expect that we would maintain those commitments, showing fidelity to our work with our educators. I would reluctantly but strongly disagree with the visual and performing arts, not because I don't think it's important, and we've heard from a lot of folks, but because I think it's less of a must-have than mathematics. So I would propose taking that $140,000 and putting it in the teaching and learning line instead of in the secondary line.

▶ 29:32 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Is there additional discussion?

▶ 29:42 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: The other thing we can do, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you may vote a portion of this or you may vote the entire amount. I do not believe that it all needs to be voted tonight, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Mayor Grigoris, please.

▶ 30:01 Jen Grigoraitis: Oh, thank you. Yeah. I was going to say through the chair, but you are the chair, so to the chair which is probably violating protocol. I'm very appreciative of your thoughts and reasoning and thinking about the need for mathematics. I think the kind of city side of me and manager side of me that sometimes feels more like my job is similar to the superintendent's, I do think we need to make a decision tonight because I think anything that's involving people, whether that's hiring people, finding part-time people, I think to wait until July is going to further hamstring our ability to deliver whatever it is that is decided to deliver. So I caution us from-- I know, and I recognize, and we all signed up for having to make incomplete and imperfect decisions sometimes on a very tight timeline, and that's what this is. I feel like we as a community, through the override and then through the work of this committee and the superintendent and Ken Kelley and Ms. Acevedo, have really, I think, put the bones in place to try to turn math around. We're bringing back a K-6 through 12 STEM director. We've made a significant investment in, I think, $1 million in mathematics curriculum, which I think is one of the largest investments in the district's history. We are bringing back classroom teachers, which I'm hoping that we are planting the seeds that will then help us to see in coming years the changes that we all want to see. So, I feel like we've made that investment in this budget, and I think it's certainly going to take us time to see if the data follows us along. I very much hear you. This is essentially one-time money. We cannot guarantee that. I think we have to be very clear about that. I think that's an inherent risk in everything that we do in government. I'm also very worried about the federal headwinds. I forgot to mention earlier, we do have slightly over a million dollars in the special ed stabilization account, so I think, again, through some really hard and thoughtful decisions of this body and the city council, we are as prepared as we reasonably can be to hopefully weather what might be coming our way. We can't weather everything if it comes all at once, but I think, again, as a slightly anxious person, we've tried to put as much in place as we can. So, I just offer that as sort of what was going through my head as I was hearing your thoughts and concerns, which I very much appreciate.

▶ 32:24 Speaker 6: Additional comments? Mr. Hartmann.

▶ 32:25 Speaker 4: Thank you, and thank you for your comments as well. I think it brings a light of focus to some of the data we're going to hear about. I think that's an important focus for us to have. I have one question and sort of one comment as well. This is the third year that I've gotten to look at Ms. Acevedo's data reports in the spring and kind of where we're headed with some of our next year implementation strategies, and I feel like in the document as presented, and I know we're going to hear more about what that means tonight, there's a lot of really direct strategies looking at math. And I think that's different in some ways than previous years where we haven't had the resources to be able to implement very deeply into these areas. And I see that with the curriculum addition. I see that with some of the strategies that are outlined in the memo as it is, and we'll hear more about that tonight. And I agree with the mayor. We've invested a lot in that area with the STEM director and those pieces coming together in a way that the override has supported that effort. And then I'm also curious because I think I want to clarify one thing. It's my belief that the Chapter 70 is not a one-time, it is incorporated into the base Chapter 70 amount. So, that is a fund that we will see going forward. It's not a one-time revenue increase, right?

▶ 33:39 Speaker 5: Current Chapter 70 regulations would be yes, that would go- Right ... to having said that, Chapter 70 to me is something that the state is consistently now starting to look at, so I don't know. Going forward, I don't know what Chapter 70 is going to look like. I think they are putting a real close lens on that. There needs to be major changes for next year, and typically that is something we're held harmless of. It adds to us. We would count on that, but- Right ... with what's going on at the federal level, state revenue, I'm just kind of watching that with-

▶ 34:09 Speaker 4: With- ... cautiously optimistic ... with the caveats that there are many other pieces at play. But the Chapter 70 formula would incorporate that into our base amount, and going forward under the current formula, we would be able to rely on that being part of the base amount. Just want to clarify that point as well. So, that's my understanding at least.

▶ 34:28 Speaker 6: Other comments or questions?

▶ 34:33 Speaker 1: Chair Kelley. Sure. Thank you very much. I've kind of gone back and forth on this over the last two weeks or so, thinking about knowing this is coming and what the priorities have been. And I think I am reflecting back on some of the comments about the arts program supports all of our schools. It's currently without or potentially without leadership, and it is something that can get a lot of marginalized children to want to come to school and be engaged and excited by it. Also, definitely recognize the math aspect that Miss Driscoll's been talking about because we have been seeing some challenges around that. But to Mr. Hartmann's point, there does seem to be a strong plan around that in addition to our new curriculum. So, I think at this point I would make a motion to put $140,000 into the secondary category and $192,180 into the admin district-wide category.

▶ 35:32 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Is there a second? Second. Made by Chair Kelley, seconded by Mayor Grigoris. Further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor?

▶ 35:43 Speaker 6: Opposed? And one absent. That passes. Five in favor, one opposed, and one absent. Mr. Kelley, does that give you the information that the appropriate approval in all categories?

▶ 36:03 Speaker 5: It does, yes. The budget now with, thank you for the vote, has increased to that $54,269,180 level now. So, we can move forward with that.

▶ 36:10 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Okay, very good, and that included both pieces.

▶ 36:14 Speaker 6: Great. Very good. Yes, Mr. Hartmann.

▶ 36:16 Speaker 4: Do we need to vote on the realignment of the other categories based upon the contract changes?

▶ 36:21 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Yes. Well, that was my question to Mr. Kelley. I would think we would want to do that.

▶ 36:25 Speaker 5: Yes, you would now vote the amounts in the categories.

▶ 36:29 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: And we can take those on a group basis, maybe leaving separate administration and district-wide as a separate category. So, relative to the will of the committee, all the others could be together, or you could do each one individually, but that is up to you to decide. Mr. Hartmann.

▶ 36:50 Speaker 4: I would move that we approve the recommended amounts in categories Franklin ECC, elementary, secondary, athletics, EC, teaching and learning, and special education together.

▶ 37:01 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Made by Mr. Hartmann, seconded by Mr. Kelley. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? All opposed? And one absent. So five in favor, one opposed, and one absent. And then the administrative district-wide line, is there a motion on that line? Mr. Kelley.

▶ 37:24 Speaker 1: Sure. I'd make a motion to approve the administration district-wide recommended amount.

▶ 37:30 Margaret Raymond Driscoll: Is there a second on that motion made by Ms. Holleran? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor? Opposed? Abstain? And one is absent, so that is five in favor, one abstention, and one absent. And that concludes our business under finance and facilities.