Sharon's blog

The Technology Advisory Committee was formed two years ago. They were charged with assessing the current state of technology in the schools and developing a plan to bring it up-to-date. In general, the computers in our schools are so old that they are incapable of running current browsers and other recent software. Many computers are out of commission because replacement parts are not available. Printers, LCD projectors, and other ancillary hardware are likewise old and in need of repair. The district’s network and server infrastructure needs upgrading.

The Technology Committee released a report in Spring 2011. The plan they proposed was estimated to cost $5 million plus an additional $1.75 million for network upgrades. After feedback from the School Committee, the school community, and the public, they then proposed a “phase in” plan to take place over four years including a replacement cycle for older machines. The estimate for this phased in approach came to $7.5 million.

The Technology Committee began with the premise that technology is a tool to be used to engage students and improve classroom instruction. In their original report, they describe a paradigm shift in how classroom instruction would be approached. To realize this vision of teaching, they also described needed professional development for our faculty. They studied research and reports from other districts on the use of technology in education and visited schools in the area that are utilizing a one-student-to-one-computer model of technology.

Given the current economy, an over $7 million expenditure in technology would be impossible to fund from the schools operating budget. It was proposed that the city include funding for school technology in a capital improvement plan that would be funded by a bond. The Mayor hired an educational technology consultant, TECedge, to review the Technology Advisory Committee’s report and to then come up with a proposal reduced to the essentials. On Monday October 31, the Mayor held a press conference at which he announced the $2 million technology plan .

On Thursday November 3, the Technology Advisory Committee held a meeting to discuss the new proposal. Steve Kelly from TECedge explained the new $2 million proposal. They proposed a two phase plan with the first $2 million to be spent on replacing the teacher’s computer stations in all the classrooms, replacing old computers in libraries and labs with 3-year-old refurbished computers, upgrades to the server and network infrastructure, and a number of laptops on carts for use in classrooms. In Phase 2, another $2 million would be spent to add more laptops, replace the refurbished computers and other older computers used by the administration, do further upgrades to the network infrastructure, and provide LCD projectors for the high school. The plan also included estimated costs for ongoing professional development for our teachers and operating costs. These expenses would have to be included in the schools’ regular operating budget.

Mayor McGlynn was spoke briefly at beginning of the November 3 meeting and made it clear that the TECedge report was not THE plan that would be funded but was subject to input from the Technology Advisory Committee, the School Committee, and the public. He was also clear that new technology for the schools was critical and that he was committed to funding what was needed. The discussion that followed Steve Kelly’s brief presentation was extremely informative. Many questions were asked about both the original proposal and the new proposal. It became clear that certain pieces would need to be moved into Phase I–such as projectors for high school classrooms–and other items would need to be researched and discussed more thoroughly.

It is clear that our schools need the new technology. Unfortunately, this area has been neglected for years due to severely decreased budgets and it has reached a critical stage. A large initial bolus of funding (or two as the new plan calls for) will need to be followed by a dedicated line item in the school budget. A plan for replacing old computers on a yearly basis will be critical to maintaining technology so that we are not faced with a similar technology crises in another decade.

In Medford, a child must be 5 years old by December 31 to enter Kindergarten in a given year. This cut-off date is much later than in most other Massachusetts school districts, which require a child to be 5 years old by August 31 or September 1.  On November 18, the School Committee had an initial meeting to review the possibility of changing the cut-off to an earlier date. A week earlier, a group of Kindergarten and early-grade teachers met with administrators to discuss the issue.  Diane Caldwell, Director of Elementary Education, summarized the discussion and then turned the floor over to the teachers who told us their thoughts on the topic.  The Committee was also given a number of references about current research on school readiness and Kindergarten age for more information.

There are good arguments to be made for both keeping the current cut-off date as well as for changing it to an earlier date.

• Currently, students entering Kindergarten in September can range in age over a 16-month spread as those children with a fall birthday can either still be 4 years old or can be 5 but are actually turning 6 before December. The difference in physical, cognitive, and emotional development over this age range can be great. A teacher may find children at very different developmental stages in terms of fine motor skills, the ability to sit still and focus, emotional control, and academic readiness. Although there are kindergarten aides assisting the teacher for much of the time, the range of abilities in one classroom can be difficult for a teacher.  By moving the cut-off date forward to September 1, the resulting age spread for entering Kindergarten students would theoretically be lessened to 12 months making the developmental range of the cohort more uniform.
• Since society now expects more rigorous academic work from a Kindergarten student than used to be the case, the younger students may be asked to do more than they are developmentally ready to do.  Some teachers suggested that this may result in many of the younger students needing special education services.
• The number of kindergarten students district-wide has increased significantly in recent years. This year there are five Kindergarten classes at each of the schools ranging from 20 to 24 students each. Having larger classes makes it more difficult for a teacher to work effectively with the whole class given the large range of developmental skills.
• It was also conjectured that families temporarily move to Medford or otherwise acquire a Medford address in order take advantage of our free all-day Kindergarten for their turning-five-in-the-fall children – artificially expanding our Kindergarten classes.
• By moving the date to September 1, Medford would be consistent with the majority of other school districts, making transitions between districts smoother and cutting down on possible confusion for new families.

Arguments for not changing the Kindergarten entrance age:

• There are many Medford students who have not attended preschool before Kindergarten.  If children with fall birthdays can enter the schools at age 4 nearly 5 rather than waiting another year until they are closer to 6, we have more time with them and can help them earlier.
• Children who have been identified through early intervention as needing special services can receive those services as a Kindergarten student through programs already in place in the schools. The district is required to provide these students with an appropriate school setting.  To accommodate these children in a preschool setting for another year, we would likely have to increase the number of preschool classes we currently have. Preschool classes are required to have a much lower student to teacher ratio (15:1) and also require model children without special needs.  Additional classes would have financial implications.
• My colleague Ann Marie Cugno commented that in conversations with committee members from other districts, they are interested in the fact that we have a later cut-off date.  It is widely acknowledged that having students enter school earlier is advantageous.

There are other options to consider besides moving to an earlier cut-off date, for example the younger students could be placed in a two-year looping class.  If at the end of the year, the child is ready for first grade, they would enter first grade with their slightly older grade-level peers.  If it is felt that the child would benefit more from another year of Kindergarten-level work, the child could stay in the class without the stigma of being retained.

Currently at the McGlynn, there is one class of Kindergarten students that all have fall birthdays. Their teacher Cindy Griffin told us she did not see a difference academically between her four-year-olds and an average five-year-old.  She described her class as having the typical spread of academic abilities with most children at or above grade level. These younger students however did tend to have shorter attention spans and needed to move more frequently. They also needed additional help in social-emotional areas and self-help skills (such as putting on coats and boots).

I have heard concerns from a number of parents about a possible change taking effect for September 2011.   Although the original thought was to make the decision in time for the 2011-2012 school year, I agree that this would not be timely enough notice for parents to make plans and I will push for any change to take effect only in September 2012.

There will be at least two more meetings and more discussion before a decision is made. The Superintendent has promised to present us with several different scenarios and the ramifications, including financial, of each.

On November 8, the school committee had a tour of the high school with Superintendent Roy Belson and the Director of Building and Grounds Paul Edwards.   Although I have been in many areas of the school, I do not have the intimate knowledge of its rooms and corridors that most of my colleagues do so it was doubly interesting to me to see the less public areas of the school.  We toured classrooms, lecture halls, the science labs, gymnasiums and the new fitness center, the nurses offices, pre-school rooms, and some “behind the scenes” storage areas and working spaces.  The Superintendent explained the history of various areas, many of which had been converted from classrooms unneeded as the high school population has decreased over the years since it was built.

Along the way, all the repair and renovation work completed over the last decade was noted, but it became clear that significant money needs to be invested into our high school building to bring it into the 21st century.  The areas that are of most concern to me are the science labs and the swimming pool. Other areas of concern are the nurses offices, which are crowded and need reconfiguration, and the large lecture rooms, which sport dingy 1970s colors, missing seats, and tired furnishings. The building’s heating and cooling systems need replacement and the windows, particularly in the pool and gyms but elsewhere in the building as well, need to be updated to improve the energy efficiency of the building.

The Building the Future Committee, the group that had planned the new schools, had developed a three-phase plan. The first two phases were completed resulting in our new elementary and middle school buildings.  The third phase was a comprehensive overview of renovations needed at the high school ordered by priority.  Much of this work has been done as funding allowed, but some tasks have not been completed and time has added more to the list.

With the cuts to the school budget in recent years, there has been a decrease in maintenance staff as well as custodial staff.  The man-power needed to keep on top of preventative maintenance is not available and there is little to no money available for supplies for such work.  Instead of comprehensively replacing certain systems, repairs have been made on an as-needed patchwork sort of basis.  Obviously, these short-term fixes can only hold things together for so long and may lead to more expensive long-term repairs down the road.

A comprehensive renovation of the high school will cost millions of dollars.  I feel that we can not continue to slap on band-aids to fix problems for much longer and that it will be less expensive in the long run to spend the money needed to “do it right” and do it well.  The school committee is interested in redeveloping a plan and asking the city to take out a bond to fund the needed renovations.  We will need the support of the citizens of Medford in order to move forward with this idea.

Facts about Medford High School

• Built in 1970
• 532,000 sq feet
• Student population in the 1970s close to 3600+
• Current student and staff approx. 1400 (1600 including VoTech)

Continue reading ‘Touring the High School’ »

I am really enjoying learning about how our schools operate and public education in general, so I was excited to attend the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) and Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (MASS) joint conference this past November.  The conference offered many workshops on topics such as the nuts and bolts of being on a school committee, updates on new laws effecting school districts, and interesting programs from other districts; while general sessions focused on public education issues at both the state and national levels.

Many of the whole group presentations focused on the issue uppermost in school committees and superintendents minds: the financial picture for the upcoming budget year.  We heard presentations from Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, State Senator Ken Donnely and State Representative Jay Kaufman, J.D. Cheslof, Deputy Director of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and Chester Mitchell, Commissioner of Education.  The picture they painted was bleak.  Fiscal year 2012 starts out with a predicted $2.5 billion decrease from last year mainly due to the loss of one-time funds such as money from the Federal stimulus program and the state’s rainy day fund.  On the bright side, state revenues were higher than projected for October and if they continue to increase, the budget gap will be smaller than projected.  Still, FY2012 will be even tighter than FY2011 and we can expect more reductions in local aid and Chapter 70 (education) funding.

On Thursday, we were addressed by Earl Rickman, President of the National School Boards Association, who spoke about national concerns in public education.  He stressed the responsibilities of being a School Committee member and the importance of working together for a common purpose.  He also spoke about the movie “Waiting for Superman” and how the message of the movie oversimplifies the  complicated issues in our public education system and hinders thoughtful discussion by promoting an “Us vs. Them” attitude.  He stated that our public education system is under attack from the misguided education policies at the state and national levels.  He urged us all to stand up and speak out for our public schools.

The whole conference was an emotional roller coaster for me: on the one hand, the looming cuts to our schools’ budget threaten to be even more severe than this year’s cuts, and on the other hand, I attended many interesting workshops and had numerous interesting informal discussions.  I attended workshops that dealt with the nuts and bolts of school committees, such as running effective meetings and parliamentary procedure.  I also attended sessions on ways to involve the community in a strategic planning process, programs to lower special education costs, international programs for high school students, and ways to improve classroom instruction.  Attending the conference also gave me an opportunity to compare notes with colleagues from other communities who are all dealing with similar issues.

School opened on a fairly rainy September 8 this year.  Despite the reduction in secretarial staff, things went pretty smoothly.  Concerns during the first weeks of school centered on class size and bus issues.  Due to an emphasis on small class size and a last minute influx of Federal money for education jobs, elementary class sizes across the district averaged 21.6 students; class size ranges from 19 for Kindergarten at the Roberts and 2^nd grade at the Columbus to 24 in 5^th grade at the Roberts.  Bus routes were adjusted to address riding time and crowding issues.  Although some issues still persist on a few routes, the administration is proud that Medford continues to have free busing when many other communities do not.

In August, President Obama signed the Education Jobs Bill giving Medford $741,233 in direct assistance to be used for educational jobs.  The School Committee approved the use of these funds to hire 4 Elementary teachers (Kindergarten teachers at the Brooks, Columbus, and Roberts, and a 4^th grade teacher at the McGlynn), an additional Special Education team leader, another teacher for our growing English Language Learners population, a 6^th grade Science teacher for the Andrews, and an Information Technology Specialist to deal with student data. There are now five Kindergarten classes at all four of our elementary schools.  The Andrews grade 6 A-side is back to a four person team leaving only 6B with three teachers.

The only position I had qualms about was the Information Technology Specialist as it is not a direct teaching position and I am not happy about the reasons we need such a person.  However,  currently there is such an emphasis on data and there is so much data generated by MCAS for our students, that analysis and running reports takes a lot of time.  By hiring an IT specialist dedicated to  generating reports needed for reporting requirements and grants, principals and other administrators will be able to concentrate on the other important aspects of their jobs.