Board of Education Meeting Minutes

September 18, 2007

ATTENDANCE: Jody Bishop-Pullan, Chair; Rosa Murray, Vice Chair; Susan Hamilton, Bruce Kimmel, Robert Polley, Shirley Mosby, Gregory Burnett, Migdalia Rivas (8:10 p.m.)

ABSENT: Thomas Vetter STAFF: Dr. Salvatore Corda, Superintendent of Schools

OTHERS: Loizos Karaiskos, Silvermine 4th grade student; Phyllis Reed, Bruce Mellion, Norwalk Federation of Teachers Union President; Charles Wilhelm, Richard Fuller, Paul Blumenthal, Stuart Opdahl, Ralph Valenzisi; Dr. Karen Lang,

CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Bishop-Pullan called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Ms. Bishop-Pullan led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

SPOTLIGHT ON NORWALK PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Ms. Bishop-Pullan invited Mr. Karaiskos to stand in front of the group as she read her report on Mr. Karaiskos’ participation in the National Young Scholars program held at Union College in July. SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT Dr. Corda greeted everyone and stated that he had been asked why there were so many different plans for the District. He said that he would answer this question during the course of his presentation.

Dr. Corda distributed copies of his PowerPoint presentation to those present.

He then reviewed the District’s Planning Process with the Board and stated that it was focused on specific goals, analysis of data, best practices, involvement of key individuals and or groups in plan development, annual assessment of effectiveness and flexibility to adapt and modify as needed. Dr. Corda said that a “SMART” goal model would be used. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-based.

Dr. Corda emphasized the importance of having a focus on the Instructional Core, which is the interaction between teacher and student regarding the curriculum content.

Ms. Rivas joined the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

He then reviewed the various components of the plan, which included the following:

• Board Goals including o Instruction o Community Participation o Communication o Finance o Long range Planning

• A District Instructional Plan • A District Improvement Plan, which includes: o Cambridge Education Assessment

• A School Growth Plan • A Teacher Evaluation Plan • An Administrator’s Evaluation Plan • A District Technology Plan • And finally, a District Facility Plan Mr. Kimmel asked about the details of the technology plan. Mr. Opdahl and Mr. Valenzisi reviewed the purchasing process with the Board. Mr. Valenzisi explained that the hardware is paid for through the Capital Funds, while the software is considered curriculum.

Dr. Corda then reviewed the role of Cambridge Education’s assessment with the Board in more detail. Ms. Bishop-Pullan had several detailed questions about the District Improvement Plan, which Dr. Corda explained to her.

Mr. Polley had a question about the adjustment of teaching time to maximize the use of the time. Dr. Corda said that the key to this was “reflection – action – assessment – reflection”.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Reed came forward and stated that she had several questions in order to have some clarification about the Superintendent’s contract. She stated that she had a copy of the document that was distributed two weeks earlier. Ms. Reed said that there may be a problem with the pagination, but the first page reads “Page 1 of 8” thru “Page 6 of 8”. Then the next page, which contains the signatures has “Page 7 of 7” on the bottom.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that this would be looked into.

Ms. Reed said that since she was a taxpayer, she wished for some clarification. Regarding evaluation, Ms. Reed wished to know how many times the Superintendent was evaluated during the school year 2006-07. She then asked if it was done by the entire Board or a committee.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan explained that the Board could not answer Ms. Reed, but that they would take the questions and someone would contact her with the answers.

Ms. Reed wished to know if the Superintendent participates in the dentist, health and vision coverage or if he pays for 55% of the plan. If the Superintendent resigns, Ms. Reed asked, if the taxpayers be obligated to continue to pay these benefits for him and his spouse until age 65.

Regarding life insurance, Ms. Reed wished to know if it was correct to say that if the Superintendent was to leave the Norwalk School system, the taxpayers would be liable for almost $900,000 in insurance premiums for as long as he lives. She also asked if the District was paying any other life or health insurance premiums for any other past Superintendent of schools.

Regarding reimbursement, the contract states that the “Superintendent will received reimbursement expenses, including the IRS mileage rate for trips in excess of fifty miles.” This is standard and understandable, Ms. Reed said. However, she wished to know what the $300 payment for the use of the car was for. She asked if these were interschool trips and if there were any statistics to justify this payment.

Ms. Reed then asked if the contract was approved unanimously. She then asked how many of the current Board of Education members were running for re-election in the Board of Education and asked for a show of hands.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that this information would be included in the answers to her questions.

Regarding the funding, Ms. Reed pointed out that this contract was approved after the budget was set. She wished to know if there was funding to cover all the stipulations or if the money to cover any or all of the stipulations will come out of another fund. Mr. Mellion came forward and stated that he would like to make some comments about Action Item D thru H, which involved policy. He said that he wished to make three general comments first. The first was that the District consider using consistent wording because the text vacillates between “teacher” and “staff” in the policies. Secondly, he pointed out that there is no mention about students who come to the District from out of the country. Frequently, there is no background or records available. The final comment was that when there are no records from a sending district, because the records frequently arrive very slowly, how would this be handled.

Policy 5111a – Item 4 states that the children’s record of attendance and tardiness must be reviewed. This is for early admission to kindergarten. A caveat may be needed there indicating this would be for preschool, unless the student is home schooled. Mr. Mellion asked what record of attendance of attendance and tardiness is being referred to there.

Item G on the same early kindergarten policy states that “to observe a child in a class room setting”. That again would have to be pre-school but is not delineated.

Item K appears to be a unilateral decision to violate the contractual limits. Mr. Mellion said that this was problematic and a statement should be added saying that the bargaining unit shall be notified in writing of all such cases. He stated that he did not believe the District had the right to negate the contract language.

Mr. Mellion then said that the same issue about admitting children who arrived from out of the country crops up again on page 4, regarding admission to first grade.

Policy 5111.1 – Grade Placement, Item B, speaks about changing of grade placements will occur at the beginning of the year and will not be changed during the current school year. Mr. Mellion said that if there were compelling reasons to change a student’s placement during the year, he felt that this option should remain open. This policy could be counter-productive to the best interest of the child.

Policy 5123a – Mr. Mellion said that the policy speaks about the reading recovery program, which the District no longer has.

Mr. Wilhelm came forward to speak next and said that he wished to follow up on the last time he addressed the Board, which was Dr. Corda had presented his overview of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) report. Mr. Wilhelm said that he had requested the Board do something with the public to get the word out. Since then, Mr. Wilhelm said that there were several articles in the local media that continue to give an overall impression that Norwalk Schools are not performing. The perception from those articles and other people in the surrounding towns is that this underscores the fact that Norwalk Schools are not doing well.

Based on Dr. Corda’s report and some research that Mr. Wilhelm had done on his own, Mr. Wilhelm said that he thought the District was doing much better than it was being given credit for. Mr. Wilhelm said that he believes that the Board of Education has the capability to do some public relations work. He then requested that the Board review how the Central Office Public Relations Department handles the media, evaluates media criticisms of the system and then replies to the reporting.

After the reports came out in The Hour and the Stamford Advocate, Mr. Wilhelm said that some people he had spoken to had decided to move from Norwalk. These people feel that the Norwalk Schools are not performing and therefore would rather not continue in the Norwalk Public Schools. A couple who will be moving here from England and have purchased a residence here in Norwalk will be not sending their children to the Norwalk Public Schools based on report they have gotten from the real estate broker and others.

Mr. Wilhelm concluded by saying that the School system is not doing enough to be pro-active and supporting what is really happening in the School District. He said that he hoped that the Board and Dr. Corda would put together a program to insure that in the future, the word does get out to the public about the District’s pro-active stance.

Mr. Fuller came forward and stated his name and that he lives at 100 Stuart Avenue. He said that he had collected some data over the past three years dealing with homework policies. He said that when it was set up, there were concerns about the amount of homework that the students were being assigned. Some arbitrary numbers were assigned to the various levels. Mr. Fuller said that since the Board was considering revising the homework policy, he wished to comment on this.

Mr. Fuller said that it was difficult to set a policy because it was based on many different factors for each student. It is not the amount of homework, but the relevancy of it, Mr. Fuller said. It is important to determine if the homework is reinforcing the work in the classrooms. There have been concerns about students doing their homework during the after school programs because the work has already been corrected by the time the teacher gets it. This means that the student’s teacher has little or no feedback as to what the child does or does not know. Parents are very happy to have the homework done in an after school setting.

Mr. Fuller said that in the elementary schools, most of the homework is in packets. However, with the change in the use of textbooks and additional source material handouts, frequently the child does not have all the information needed on the handout. The necessary information had been presented on the board and the child does not have something to refer back to for the information again.

Mr. Fuller said that the new policy should also take into consideration the various other aspects, such as portability because a child may not be going directly home after school or the homework folder may get lost.

Mr. Blumenthal came forward and said that he lives at 4 Logan Place. He said that he wanted to thank Dr. Corda for making the Cambridge Education Review so meaningful by having it available to all the schools. He said that this was an important component to the program moving forward and would help to get everyone on the same page.

Mr. Blumenthal said that the previous presentation was very positive and uplifting. Mr. Blumenthal cautioned against complacency because the 30- 40% of students that are falling below proficiency are people. Those students in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, who are in this classification, need assistance. Without it, they will fall further and further behind. It is important to maintain the sense of urgency. Mr. Blumenthal said that there is a controversy on whether the District is in need of improvement or whether the District is failing. It does not matter to the students who are in the 30 – 40% classification because to them, the glass is totally empty. For them, the District has not done the job that it has set out to do.

Mr. Blumenthal suggested that there be more dialog. He pointed out that the Ford Edsel was a product of over analysis. Some of the educational aspect may not be able to be placed on a piece of paper as data. Being a slave to the data can lead to results, but it could also lead to producing an Edsel.

Finally, Mr. Blumenthal said that there is a wonderful system where the public can come in and make a comment. He suggested that the Board consider a question and answer meeting.

As there was no one else present who wished to address the Board, the public comment portion of the meeting closed at 8:42 p.m.

ACTIONS A. Consent

Approval of Personnel Actions

** MS. RIVAS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PERSONNEL ACTIONS. ** MS. MURRAY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

B. Approval of field trip (China trip)

** MS. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE THE NORWALK HIGH SCHOOL GRADES 11-12 AP COMPARATIVE POLITICS (15-20 STUDENTS) TO BEJING, CHINA FOR MODEL U.N. CONFERENCE ON MARCH 1-15, 2008.

**MS. RIVAS SECONDED.

Ms. Bishop-Pullan said that she had some concerns about the fact that the trip takes place during the period while school is in session. However, she also said that the opportunity to attend the conference was the reason for this.

Mr. Kimmel said that he wished to see the number of students in the eligible class versus the number of students that actually do go on the trip. Mr. Kimmel also said that if he discovered that there was little or no financial aid utilized, he would be reluctant to approve future trips.

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

C. Approval of Budget Transfers

** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:

RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE THE ATTACHED BUDGET TRANSFERS. ** MR. BURNETT SECONDED.

Mr. Kimmel said that he was happy to see that the object codes were included in the packets.

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

D. Approval of Policy #5111 – Early Admission

** MS. MURRAY MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:

RESOLVED UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE POLICY #5111 – EARLY ADMISSION.

** MR. BURNETT SECONDED.

Dr. Lang came forward and explained that since the last review of this document by the Board, that there had been three small recommendations. Dr. Lang then reviewed the changes with the Board.

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

E. Approval of Policy #5111.1 – Grade Placement ** MS. RIVAS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:

RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE POLICY #5111.1.

** MS. MURRAY SECONDED.

There was a brief discussion about the placement of a student who had no previous educational experience being placed with the age appropriate peers and being provided with supplemental instructional supports.

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

F. Approval of Policy 5121 – Elementary Grading Policy

** MS. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:

RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAQT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE POLICY #5121 – ELEMENTARY GRADING POLICY.

** MS. MOSBY SECONDED.

Mr. Polley said that he would like to congratulate Mr. Valenzisi on his hard work to allow the teachers to access the reports online.

Mr. Burnett said that he hope that every effort would be made to get the information out to the students parents at the Open House.

** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. G. Approval of Policy #5123 – Elementary Promotion/Retention

** MR. BURNETT MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE POLICY #5123 – PROMOTION/RENTENTION REQUIREMENTS.

** MS. MOSBY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

H. Approval of Policy 5123.1 – Elementary Promotion/Retention/Acceleration

** MR. BURNETT MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:

RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVE POLICY #5123.1 – PROMOTION/RENTENTION/ACCELERATION REQUIREMENTS.

** MS. MOSBY SECONDED.

Dr. Corda informed the Board that the State now has passed mandatory legislation regarding the retention of students.

Ms. Rivas had some concerns that any acceleration of students is done with the parent’s approval.

** MS. RIVAS MOVED TO AMEND POLICY 5123.1 – PROMOTION/RETENTION/ACCELERATION REQUIREMENTS BY CHANGING THE FOLLOWING FROM: “IN ALL CASES OF POSSIBLE RENTENTION, PARENTS/GUARDIANS MUST BE INFORMED OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY IN ADVANCE, BUT NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE SECOND MARKING PERIOD (MARCH).”

TO: “IN ALL CASES OF POSSIBLE RENTENTION OR ACCELERATION, PARENTS/GUARDIANS MUST BE INFORMED OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY IN ADVANCE, BUT NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE SECOND MARKING PERIOD (MARCH).

** MS. MOSBY SECONDED. ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

** THE MOTION TO APPROVE POLICY 5123.1 AS AMENDED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

INFORMATION AND REPORTS

A. Board Member announcements

Ms. Bishop-Pullan announced that Ms. Mosby has been appointed to the Board of Education curriculum committee and the Roton BAC and the Ponus BAC.

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. BURNETT MOVED TO ADJOURN. ** MS. MURRAY SECONDED. ** THE MOTON PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon L. Soltes Telesco Secretarial Service

Category: Minutes