Town of Natick - School Committee Retreat Minutes

Approval of Records

Natick School Committee

Minutes from School Committee Retreat

Saturday, April 28, 2001

The Natick School Committee convened in open meeting at 264 Newbury Street, Boston, MA, at 9:20 am. The attendees at this meeting were:

Mr. Jonathan Freedman

Ms. Kristine VanAmsterdam

Ms. Broekel opened the meeting by outlining several overarching objectives:

Effective collaboration, including a review of roles and responsibilities.

Effective organization to maximize productivity and collaboration of both individual committee members and the School Committee as a whole.

A positive and constructive relationship with the central administration.

The identification of system priorities and the methodologies to achieve them.

Ms. Broekel also outlined her vision of the role of the School Committee Chair:

To organize and channel information to and from the School Committee and the Central Office, and within the School Committee.

To be the voice of the School Committee for the media as a mechanism to ensure delivery of a consistent message. The Chair may appoint other members of the School Committee to speak on behalf of the committee on specific subject matters. Both sides of an issue will be addressed in order to provide a balanced view and discussion. The overall goal is for the School Committee to speak with one voice and to maintain focus on the issues and overall position of the School Committee.

The Vice-Chair will assume these roles in the absence or unavailability of the chair.

The Chair should be aware of major positions and opinions on issues that are held by members solely for the purpose of being informed.

Members of the School Committee agreed with Ms. Broekel’s vision.

Members of the School Committee recognized that as a whole they are an energetic, professional group that is committed both to the public schools and the town. The committee feels that the Natick Public Schools is a good system and is committed to continuous improvement. A comparison was made of the School Committee to a Board of Directors, and it was observed that there are elements of the School Committee that are comparable to a CEO. Overall, the School Committee expressed several expectations of the Superintendent:

Provide a vision of the system’s direction for the coming year(s) and clear, measurable goals to serve as benchmarks for achieving the vision.

Identify issues that should be brought to the SC’s attention.

Provide relevant background information prior to discussion as a means to focus the discussion.

Provide a framework and context for the discussion.

Provide alternatives and recommendations.

The School Committee also recognizes that it has high expectations for the Superintendent.

The School Committee discussed the utilization of the Internet as a vehicle for communicating with the community, and agreed to request that the Superintendent provide guidelines on the process of posting and updating all appropriate materials to the Internet, including minutes, agendas, presentations, etc.

The School Committee specifically recognized that limited resources would continue to be an issue for the system in the foreseeable future. In the quest for academic excellence, the School Committee recognizes that fiscal constraints exist. Consequently, the School Committee expressed its desire for the Administration to think ‘outside the box’ and to recognize that the answer to every need cannot be additional resources.

The School Committee discussed its legal resources. The SC’s attorney, Ms. Naomi Stonberg, is capable and interested in providing input on a variety of subjects, and is available for consultation via telephone through the Chair.

The School Committee discussed the role and nature of the ‘Public Speak’ portion of the agenda. Ms. Broekel indicated that she may on occasion address a concern or issue raised in a previous ‘Public Speak’ segment during the general ‘Communication’ portion of a subsequent School Committee meeting. The purpose of this would be to retain the flexibility to respond to factually incorrect statements but not to respond to opinions expressed by members of the public. The Chair will continue to read the ‘Public Speak’ policy during School Committee meetings. Members of the School Committee agreed with this objective.

The School Committee spent considerable and productive time discussing the roles of the School Committee and the Superintendent, and observed that several roles overlapped:

Role of School Committee Role of Superintendent

Board of Directors or Management/CEO COO

Oversight Set strategic objectives (shared with the School Committee and the state)

Development and maintenance of policies Operating plan

Ensure the proper processes for policy decisions are in place Community communications

Decide what kind of schools we want Budget

Set strategic objectives (shared with the COO) role and with the state Political role

Community communications Performance standards for staff and children

Collective bargaining

Performance standards for the Superintendent

Performance standards for the children?

The School Committee agreed that it is committed to excellence for all children, and discussed the question of how to meet the needs of all of the students in the system, including the best/brightest as well as those requiring specialized services. Several points and questions were raised by committee members:

The School Committee is looking for a challenging curriculum that encourages academic rigor, excellence, and improvement for all children at all levels. Committee members referred to student performance in terms of a bell curve, and stressed that the focus of the system should be on children in the left, center, and right sides of the curve.

Committee members want to continue to align the curriculum to the state frameworks but not to be constrained by them.

Committee members are interested in increasing their knowledge regarding the programs and philosophies which are driving the system, as well as the standards used to evaluate performance.

Committee members discussed how to define performance standards for the students in the system, and the consensus was that the committee was not qualified to define the standards. Committee members also agreed that the role of defining and establishing standards was not clear-cut.

Committee members want to become more knowledgeable about sources of evidence that provide quantitative benchmarks regarding student performance and show whether the system is reaching all children. Committee members also agreed that measurements must be realistic and appropriate.

What is the best way to translate the overarching objectives into quantifiable standards?

How can the ‘best practices’ be identified that have been implemented by school districts across the country, and are they applicable to Natick? Can the Curriculum Council utilize any information pertaining to best practices to achieve its objectives?

What are the quantifiable data points to identify performance? Are they SAT scores, participation in AP courses, membership in the National Honor Society, etc.?

Committee members are aware that the student population is increasing nationwide, and that competition for college acceptance is similarly increasing. The School Committee wants to ensure that the top 10% of Natick students can compete against the top 10% from any school system in the state.

Is MCAS a legitimate overriding objective of the system?

Committee members discussed a system objective of advancing children from lower-scoring test categories to higher-scoring test categories (i.e., ‘fails’ to ‘needs improvement;’ ‘needs improvement’ to ‘proficient;’ ‘proficient’ to ‘advanced’), and observed that the latter segment speaks to evidence that the system is not merely teaching to the test. Committee members also reiterated their desire to identify additional appropriate quantifiable standards that would be applicable for all children in the system as opposed to certain segments.

As part of the discussion regarding meeting the needs of all of the students in the system, the subject of differentiated learning was considered. Committee members had several concerns and questions on this topic in addition to the comments that pertain to meeting the needs of all children:

How should academic groupings be defined for the purpose of differentiated instruction?

Are additional resources needed to provide additional support in specialized areas to meet the needs of differentiated instruction?

Should the groupings be initiated earlier than they are currently?

Is K-8 differentiated instruction working, and what evidence exists to support the results?

The School Committee discussed the goal setting process, and expressed its belief that the Superintendent should set his own goals in conjunction with the strategic objectives of the system. The committee looks to the Administration to continue to plan and prioritize issues, solutions, and implementations. Committee members also observed that goal setting is also related to the process of establishing strategic objectives, and discussed the roles of the School Committee and the Superintendent relative to the process of establishing strategic objectives. Committee members also recognized that education is a process, and noted that the five-year Strategic Plan runs through 2002.

The School Committee discussed the use of technology within the system, and were provided with a historical recap on the subject by Mr. Haugland. Based on his observations and professional expertise, Mr. Haugland offered several thoughts for consideration by the committee:

The level of use of instructional technology is not simply a function of money, as the Natick Public School system is currently spending approximately 3-4% of its annual budget on technology.

There exists a risk of defaulting into a situation of poor performance if opportunities and implementation plans are not properly managed. This situation is more relevant at the high school and middle school levels.

The objectives and the decision-making process of the system relative to technology are unclear.

There are important desktop and server decisions that need to be made. Examples include home/school compatibility (desktop) and Apple/Wintel operating systems (server).

Despite these questions, Mr. Haugland feels that there are no sunk costs in the system, and asked whether the remaining $90,000 allocation at the high school from the warrant article should be frozen until some of the fundamental questions raised by the Technology Task Force and Fresh Pond Technology Report are resolved.

The School Committee briefly discussed the process of the Superintendent’s performance evaluation. A potential timeline was distributed for the next evaluation cycle, and the committee agreed that both procedures and the process should be reviewed prior to the start of the next evaluation process. Ms. Broekel will work with the committee’s attorney regarding questions of communication and public documents. Ms. Packer will document the process used for the 2000-2001 performance evaluation.

The School Committee briefly discussed several other subjects, including special education costs and volumes; parent survey; safety; enrollment figures and class size; and the budget.

The meeting adjourned at 1:45 pm.

Jonathan Freedman, Clerk