Meeting Recap: 5/20/24

So…what happened at last night’s 5+ hour meeting? The top story is that the committee voted 6/0/1 (the Mayor abstained) to ask the city for $79.4 million to fund our schools in the 2024-25 fiscal year. This is $8.2 million more than what the district received this year, $5 million more than the number initially provided to the district from the city, and $2.7 more than the number that we received at the May 6 meeting (which included $2.3 million worth of cuts to close the gap between the city’s initial number and the full ask). You can see this laid out before and after public comment (2:21 and 5:09 marks, respectively).

What’s next? The superintendent will present this “ask” to the city council as part of their review of the Mayor’s proposed city budget. Eventually, the Mayor will present a final city budget to the council and once approved, the amount allotted to the schools will come back to the Superintendent as a number so she and her team can create the final budget proposal within that final number. School committee will then need to vote to approve that budget for the upcoming fiscal year (July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025).

What else? Recap below. As always, observations and opinions are my solely own.

1. Consent agenda - Two amendments (to add a link to one of the subcommittee meeting minutes and strike from the record the street addresses of students who presented at the budget hearing) but otherwise this approval was routine.

2. Report from the Ad Hoc Handbook Review subcommittee - The proposed policy (in the agenda) was approved in its first reading. (New policies get read twice over the course of two meetings to give relevant stakeholders a chance to comment on them, unless the committee decides to waive the second reading. We declined to do so last night, so this is now the time for district and school administration to provide feedback on the policy.

3. Report from Behavioral Health & Special Education subcommittee - The recommendation to co-locate the Curtis-Tufts school in/with the new high school was approved. The administration and building committee will need to flash this out for inclusion in the materials to be presented to the MSBA.

4. CCSR recognition - summary of the program by advisor Richard Trotter (400 students, 70 projects this year), two student presentations (a high school student who talked about the program generally as well as his Mystic River clean up projects, and two elementary school students talking about their Letter Carriers Safety program), and appreciation for the support of the Cummings Foundation.

5. Humanities awards recognition - Young Playwrights Project, Student Government Day, Boston Globe Scholastic Writing Awards, Geography Bee, Day on the Hill, Shakespearean Monologue Competition, Immigration Learning Center Teen Perspectives Contest, Ethics Bowl, Mock Trial, Model United Nations - congratulations to all students and their advisors

6. High school update & climate survey results presented by principals Marta Cabral and Chad Fallon - This included data comparisons between last year and this year (all trends were positive), discussion of community norms and core values, an update on the exploratory program (CTE/arts rotation and placements), and some highlights from several CTE programs/projects (scarpentry heds, health assisting, awards, licensing, apprenticeships/placements, the biodiesel collaborative project, and the robotics team), three year strategic priorities, an update on last year’s Welch Report (various pieces in progress, other recommendations planned to go into effect next school year), and a proposal for an alternative program proposal to provide a small group learning environment to meet individual needs (pilot was approved by the committee for next school year).

7. Proposal for CTE program expansion and additions - Chad Fallon provided an overview of the enrollment/wait list numbers, shared the results of a (still-in-progress) student survey about potential new offerings (criminal justice/protective services, dental assisting, IT/networking, plumbing/HVAC, veterinary science, and the various “other” responses to an open-ended prompt), and laid out plans for expanding those programs with the highest wait list numbers (auto technology, cosmetology, electrical, and health assisting programs). The committee passed a motion directing the administration to further flesh out the proposals for inclusion in the building committee’s materials for MSBA.

8. Budget presentation (6:38 p.m., so 1.5 hours into the meeting) - Interim Finance Director Gerry McCue provided some additional context for the budget proposal received on May 6. There were questions and comments from the school committee and student representatives (including a petition), and Member Ruseau made a motion to send a cuts-free budget to city council and the Mayor. 

Public comment from students, alums, teachers, and parents ensued, focusing on the coordinator of performing arts position, marching band and color guard, the Missituk teaching staff, and a smattering of other items including library, technology, administrative assistants, and kindergarten numbers. 

Also of note, the Superintendent answered some questions about the performing arts coordinator position around 8:30 (3.5 hours in).

9. Budget vote - The committee voted to approve the motion offered before public comment began. As noted previously, this is NOT the approved budget but rather, the amount we (school committee and the district) are asking the city for. The city council will review the request in the context of the full city budget, ask questions, offer opinions, but eventually the Mayor’s office will present a final budget for city council approval and, once approved, whatever the school number is will come back to the district, who will then prepare a final budget for school committee to vote on.

10. Motion to table the update from the MSBA building committee’s meeting last week - passed and, following condolences, the meeting was adjourned. 

BONUS CONTENT! What is the difference between a level funding budget and a level services budget? Level funding provides schools with the same dollar amount as they received in the year before. Because things tend to cost more year to year (due to inflation, contractual raises, etc.) having the same amount of money usually means reducing services. Level services, on the other hand, keeps the services the same but due to aforementioned cost increases, requires a higher dollar amount than the previous year. Fun fact? We voted to ask not just for level services, but level services plus additional funding to meet additional district needs (the items presented at the May 6 meeting, nothing new since then).

Agenda | Recording

Next meeting is June 3, though I will be running a subcommittee meeting for the very first time before then. Have a great long weekend in the meantime!