Milford Board of Education Committee of the Whole Meeting March ...

Milford Board of Education
Committee of the Whole Meeting
March 28, 2011
Board members present:
Dave Amendola
Tracy Casey
Gregory Oliver
Mark Stapleton, Chair
Robert M. White
Suzanne DiBiase
Josip Jukic
Diane Kruger-Carroll
Jay Tranquilli
APPROVED
Board members absent:
Jack O’Connell
Administration present:
Michael Cummings
Philip Russell
Wendy Kopazna
Susan Kelleher
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Milford Board of Education held a Committee of the Whole Meeting on Monday, March 28, 2011, in the Board
Room at the Parsons Government Complex. Chairman Stapleton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with the
reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance immediately following.
II. INSTRUCTIONAL DIVISION REPORT
Mr. Cummings introduced the administrators present to assist with the response to Public Act 10-11 presentation.
They were:
Sharon Kluchnick, Supervisor Pupil Personnel
Kim Planas, Supervisor Pupil Personnel
Vince Scarpetti, Principal West Shore Middle School
Gordon Beinstein, Principal Harborside Middle School
Janet Garagliano, Principal Jonathan Law High School
Gail Krois, Supervisor of Secondary Curriculum
Cathy Williams, Principal East Shore Middle School
John Barile, Principal Joseph A. Foran High School
He then told the board that in the fall, Mrs. Krois informed the board about the Public Act 10-111. The secondary
purpose was to boost the state to receive the Race to the Top grant funds. The state did not get the funds. He also
explained that should Public Act 10-111 be delayed, the district will move forward with the changes because there is
room for improvement. He then reviewed how the District Theory of Action is aligned to fulfilling the requirements
of the act. Mrs. Krois then navigated through a PowerPoint presentation (see attached). She began by reviewing the
five areas that immediately affect the school district. Those were: graduation requirements increasing to 25 credits
from 20 currently (Milford is currently at 22.4); alternative means for earning high school credit; required student
support structures; advanced placement program and the teacher evaluation plan. All five areas are aligned to the
District Theory of Action.
At Dr. Stapleton’s request, Mrs. Krois explained how the changes to curriculum can be recognized in the classroom.
The administration is getting ready to publish curriculum documents. Those documents have essential questions and
enduring understandings that can be reviewed by the parents.
Mr. Barile & Mrs. Garagliano reviewed the practices in place for 9-12 students. These are in the PowerPoint.
However, some of the processes in place need to be tightened up so no student falls through the cracks.
Dr. Stapleton asked how the changes apply to The Academy.
Board of Education Meeting – March 28, 2011 Approved April 11, 2011 1

APPROVED
Mr. Cummings told him that the school would be held to the provisions of the law. The Academy is a program of the
Milford high schools. It is not a separate school in itself. The students will need to fulfill the requirements of the law.
Dr. Stapleton then asked how Special Education would be handled.
Mrs. Planas explained the special education teachers are specialty teachers. However, they are being taught to
become masters of all curriculum areas. The teachers have been working with the departments to learn the
curriculum. Next year, they will concentrate on how the learning centers are scheduled. This will allow more
targeted instruction.
Mr. Amendola asked about the students who are flying low.
Mr. Barile told him that the student would be considered a tier two student. An example of an intervention would
involve pulling the student from study hall to attend a support center. There are other interventions in place for the
“C-“ students.
Mr. Amendola asked if the parents are notified of students at risk and was told yes.
Mrs. Williams then explained how the grades six through eight intervention strategies are helping students without
losing instructional time. Mr. Beinstein further said that the middle school teams meet and talk about the children.
He also pointed out that the intervention strategies are in place for the students who can’t do the work, not the students
who don’t do the work. Mr. Beinstein also stated that teachers are not systemic. Some teachers allow tests to be
retaken while others do not.
Dr. Stapleton asked how many transitional conversations have taken place during the professional development days.
Mrs. Williams said that some professional development time has been used for the eight/nine transition.
Mrs. Casey commented, as a parent, having a teacher that allowed her child to retake a test meant a lot to the student.
Her child felt much better having had the opportunity to make it up.
Mrs. Kluchnick then explained that she has been to every elementary school, met with every special ed teacher and
learned about every special ed student going into middle school. Having that opportunity is so well received by the
receiving staff and also the sending staff.
Mr. Cummings concluded his presentation by advising the board the next step would be adopting policies to support
the changes, in the summer.
Mrs. Casey asked Mr. Cummings to give some examples of how the schools will benefit by deferring to trimesters.
Mrs. Williams told her that the teachers like having more time to work on the skills.
Mrs. Casey asked Mr. Cummings why the elementary level report card was changed to a trimester.
Mr. Cummings explained the trimester allows students more time to show what they have. It gives them more time
before they are given an assessment. He also said the parents can now access their student’s grades at any time. The
quarterly grading period was taking away from instruction. He reminded the board that administration will still be
communicating to the parent community.
Mrs. Kruger-Carroll asked if it would be implemented at the high school level.
Board of Education Meeting – March 28, 2011 Approved April 11, 2011 2

Mr. Cummings told her not at this time.
APPROVED
III. BUDGET
Mr. White asked if administration would be able to provide the same equity to the school district with a 1.9M cut.
Mr. Cummings explained it is important to be aware that over the years we have absorbed the cuts through measures
Every time needed funding was not received, programs were cut. The public has been protected by keeping the class
sizes low. Administration has reduced central office staff, reduced text book dollars, computer technology and
instructional materials to name a few. The district has not continued to provide services. Closing Simon Lake saved
the district 1.1M.
Look at the staffing cuts, make 2/3 certified and 1/3 non-certified. 90% is 28 teachers. Very few are not in the
classroom. 4 custodial positions – buildings would close at 6:00pm; paraprofessionals; secretarial support; salary
aides; media aides; reductions in sports programs.
Mr. Cummings then said that he is very concerned about the support centers that are required under the Public Act 10-
111. He also explained that you can only have a certain amount of students in classes i.e. chemistry. Therefore,
elementary class sizes are really the only area to look at when cutting staff. Three, four and five grade level classes
have an average 22-23 students. The contract maximum is 29 in grades 2 and above. The worst case scenario would
be maxing out the class sizes. That equates to only 21 teachers. It is still not enough.
Mrs. Kruger-Carroll asked if there was a certain class size for special education students. She understands that special
education students have paraprofessionals.
Mr. Cummings told her that there are two different types: self-contained and main streamed.
Mrs. Kruger-Carroll asked Mrs. Kelleher to explain the size of the self-contained.
Mrs. Kelleher responded that the class sizes are dependent upon the needs of the student. On average, a class has
between five to eight students.
Mrs. Kruger-Carroll asked if the class size could be increased. The regular education classes can have up to 30
students. She does not feel we are serving the best interest of the general population as other communities are doing.
She further said that the district is doing a good job of keeping special education students in Milford, but losing
general education students.
Board discussion ensued.
Mr. Cummings concluded by reviewing more cuts that would take place. Some could be ECA, field trips, the
enrichment program and The Academy program. The impact will affect everyone. There is enough money out there
to support the school system. The concern right now is that the city could keep the money if it is returned by the state.
Mrs. Casey told the board that they should have a joint meeting with the Board of Aldermen to discuss the priorities
of the school district. She tried to schedule the meeting last year but was shot down. The City Attorney told the
chairman of the Board of Aldermen that it would be illegal. She would like to find a way to do this. It is needed.
Dr. Stapleton told her that he would contact Alderman Smith. He reminded the public the Public Hearing is April 7 th
at City Hall and the Board of Education will present its budget on April 25 th .
Mr. Cummings reminded the board members that administration will be sending out 81 non-tenured letters.
Board of Education Meeting – March 28, 2011 Approved April 11, 2011 3

APPROVED
Dr. Stapleton finished by asking how much would the 1.9M restoration of funds equate to each household. Mr.
Russell told him that it would increase tax dollars to each household by $7 or $8 a month.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Stephanie Heisler –18 Wilbar Avenue - She has a daughter at Harborside and is the president of the Milford
Association of Gifted and Talented. She was advised that the gifted program is at risk. For some students, with their
unique academic abilities, the gifted is the only place they belong. She understands the challenge the board has with
the budget. However, she hopes the program is not cut. She presented the board with a letter of support for the
program.
Cathy Berni – 90 Centennial Drive – She is a parent of a child in the gifted program and a parent of special needs
child. When a child has special needs, the child has an individual education plan. Her child is in a typical classroom.
However, she has supports in the classroom. However, every child is different. When you have a child that has
multiple issues, you cannot just say increase class sizes. She reminded the board that every child is entitled Free and
Appropriate Public Education.
Lucille Massey – Ms. Massey expressed her concern about the budget cuts. She thought last year was horrendous.
She attended the meetings with the reorganization. She asked the board if they have checked all of the options.
Please be creative and reach out to people. She commented on the lack of attendance of the board members.
Susan Rock – Crestwood – She has a daughter in the enrichment program at Orchard Hills. She then read a letter
supporting the program. She pleaded with the board to support the program.
V. BOARD COMMENT
Mr. White clarified that the 1.9M was cut by the Board of Finance. The Public Hearing on April 7 th is the public’s
only opportunity to speak to the aldermen about supporting the budget. The Board of Aldermen can override the
Board of Finance’s cut and restore funds. The Board of Finance did indeed state that if the state restores the ECS
money, the Board of Aldermen could choose to keep it. However, that is only 1.5M. There would still be a gap of
$400,000. Still significant!
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
______________________________________
Robert M. White
Corresponding Secretary
___________________________________
Pam Griffin
Recording Secretary
Board of Education Meeting – March 28, 2011 Approved April 11, 2011 4