SAU Joint Chairs Minutes

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 5:00 PM

SAU Conference Room

 

 Present:     Dick Poelaert, Anne Marie Chesno, Dave Miller, Patty Lovejoy, Kathy

McNeill, Dana Donovan, Luke Breton, Skip Hanson, Paul Flynn, Nathan Lunney, Walter Pierce, Jerry Frew and Steve Kossakoski

 

1.   Proposed 2006 - 2007 Budget & District Assessments: Nathan passed out information on the SAU Proposed budget (see Attachment #1 (pdf) -3 pages and Attachment #2 (pdf)) noting that there were a few minor changes from what he had previously emailed everyone. Reviewed the adopted 05-06 budget and the proposed 06-07 budget; discussed the salary, health, retirement and miscellaneous increases from FICA, W/C, Unemployment, LTD, life insurance, etc.  Explained that the single greatest impact on the budget increases is that we are bringing one half of Walter’s salary back into the budget since the new high school will be completed 2006-07 (see Attachment #3 (pdf)).  Also explained that the increase in technical assistance salary has to do with adding more hours for Lee-Ann Cammett, who has been assisting Kathy Weise with databases, etc.

By statue, the public hearing on this budget will be 6:30 PM on December 19^th before the SAU Joint Board meeting at 7:00 PM at SST.  Skip explained that he is looking for permission from the chairs tonight to put in the SAU Joint Board packets that the review of the SAU budget will take place during the Public Hearing at 6:30 PM since Nathan needs to leave the meeting by 7:00 PM or earlier for a budget presentation in Brentwood.  We would then vote the budget very early on the regular board agenda.  Chairs voiced no opposition.  Skip further explained that the projected salary increases in this budget are put in at a particular percentage, but that percentage can change as the boards decide in February the amount that is used to set the SAU salary increases.  We do have to put up to a certain percent in the budget now for posting and for presentation of the budget.

Nathan noted that the SAU 16 2006-07 Central Administration Assessment was in the Tuesday, December 13, 2005 Exeter Newsletter and Nathan shared a copy of this with everyone (Attachment #3).   State law dictates formula we use to assess districts across the SAU.  No questions for Nathan.

Superintendent passed out the agenda for Joint Board meeting and asked for comments/omissions/changes.  Jerry was asked what he will be reporting on under curriculum and he explained that is giving an update on where committees stand and will also briefly address how testing went at the schools.

 

2.   SAU Music Presentation:  (Jan Trueman had to leave the meeting for previous commitment)

·         The following SAU Music teachers were present to support Eric’s presentation this evening: Jennifer Ramsey - CMS, Juliet Gavin - Swasey, Kathy Hammon – CMS and, Sue Noseworthy – LSS.

·         Chairs introduced themselves.

·         Eric Cobb gave a brief background on Music Curriculum Committee that was formed a few years ago to align with the NH Frameworks;

·         Year and half ago, music teachers reconvened as a Music Task Force to bring forward some of the initiatives they saw coming out of the curriculum committee.

·         Handed out the full 51 page report from the committee Music Education in SAU #16.

·         Spoke to committee accomplishments to date.

·         Listed some of comparisons of NH music programs (100% of schools surveyed use a pull-out model; LSS- 50% teacher [students pulled during lunch/recess – one day a week]; all other SAU schools, parents pay for before or after school programs; 100% of schools survey have a contracted teacher paid in full by the districts; SAU music staff survey of how instrumental lessons are given to students and the cost vary from school to school; instrumental program enrollment 04-05; assessment results of 8^th graders since that is the age group the test was developed for – showed that kids who are involved in instrumental or choral do better; and parent survey from the SAU office – need for a coordinated music program; students should not have to choose between band and chorus and program should occur during the school day.

·         Account of cost involved to offer an in-school program;

·         Gave the proposal for an Instrumental Music Teacher Position; sample schedule for students; $64,500 for one year full time SAU position – with masters Step 5 with family insurance in contract.

·         Reviewed how much each district would pay; where in schools lessons could be held given many room restraints.

·         Benefits for our students was shared with everyone – free and equal access to lessons for all elementary students; increased enrollment with no after/before school conflicts; improved quality and continuity of instruction full time position attracts more qualified applicants; more cost effect delivery of instruction; improved communication; ensemble experience; higher NAEP music scores; students will only miss ½ hour of core class/recess/lunch/arts per week.

·         Jerry noted how exhaustive the committee’s work has been on this proposal and their dedication has been terrific in pulling all of this together to share with you.

·         Asked if students would still be responsible for buying or renting their own instruments and the response was yes.

·         Asked if could combine rental program LSS currently uses with other schools.  Eric felt that was a great idea, but most chairs felt their own schools already have rental programs they use.

·         Asked if he was recommending anything for the middle or high school programs and Eric responded he was not.

·         Asked how principals responded to the presentation – Jerry noted that they were very impressed with the quality of program and research and work committee had done and their concerns were with fitting the lessons into the school day, the budget ramifications and location of program in their schools.

·         The superintendent thanked Erica and everyone who came this evening.

·         Skip was asked when they were looking to begin this program and he explained that could adjust budget if wanted to begin for next year although not sure if could mitigate all the concerns with pull out time, etc., that quickly.

·         Jerry asked if the chairs would like to see this presentation go forward to Monday’s meeting and the consensus was that Monday’s meeting has a pretty full agenda and since the concept probably would not be put into place this year, we could look to wait to have the presentation in the spring.

·         Discussion continued on pros and cons of program.  Question was if the four schools that do not have the band experience, could they offer an after school program?  It was noted that the problem with an after school program is getting the instructors.

·         Chairs decided that in May could have this presentation to SAU board and firm up a proposal of getting the four schools that do not have a band program on board with before/after school programs.  Could also have SAU oversee one teacher doing those four schools for consistency purposes.  Can we address this in February and then bring forward in May?  Consensus to put this on May agenda since February is dedicated to superintendent’s evaluation meeting.

 

 

3.  Proposed State-Wide Virtual School – Skip:

• He and Steve have discussed that it makes a great deal of sense to look at offering a virtual school for our students and have made an application to the state to try and get a visioning grant for this.  A virtual school could assist our students, students across the state, AP students, students in prison, etc.
• Steve noted that all charter schools have to target a population and we are targeting the talented, motivated or gifted students as the first population for this charter.  He shared a conversation he had with Kathy Newcomb at EHS about types of students that often drop out – they often have passion in one specific area and drop out when their other classes do not have include that particular passion, i.e., theater student could be at Seacoast Repertory during day and take remainder classes on line.
• Steve explained how a virtual charter school would be set up, noting that there would be minimal class space needed for this concept.  Also gave example of a home school student where this type of school would give him/her an alternative to get them back into the high school; EHS is always offering more and more AP courses, but there are still many out there and this would allow them to increase AP courses available to students.  Could also help students at the middle school level if you had a student talented in a particular area, s/he could take appropriate AP courses through this school.
• Asked if there was a potential of cost savings with this concept?  Steve said we are finding that ideally this could happen, but often does not because if you had 20 students from EHS interested, could you reduce your teachers by one – maybe, but not likely.
• Time frame: optimistically Steve noted it would begin a year from this spring.
• This school would be based on technology using the Internet – could be at home or could be in the school.  Could be interactive also – all different models.
• Skip noted will keep everyone posted on this.

 

4.   RUS Grant – Skip: Rural Utilities Service grant was applied for last year and were not funded, but re-applied this year with Farmington and Ossipee in New Hampshire and some rural districts in Vermont.  We have been funded for about $500,000 with press conference scheduled for Friday, December 16, 2005 at CMS at 2:00 PM in Library.  Will have some end users and hubs with GBeCS, SPDC and ERCSD.  Steve shared some of the particulars about the interactive video conferencing equipment.  Since some of our equipment is portable, we hope to use the equipment in our SAU elementary schools as well.  Very excited about it as we go forward.

 

5.  From the Floor:

• Buses/transportation – Nathan:

Ø      Working with First Student and am expecting paperwork any day now on 6^th year contact with them;

Ø      He has already incorporated the terms of the sixth year in each of your district’s budget and would ask if you would vote that this evening.  The terms are essentially the same: 5% increase (previous years little better than 3% increase), but have adjusted the fuel clause with ceiling of $2.30 for diesel (last year was $2.00 and we have had to adjust for fuel this year); between $2.30-$2.50 diesel gallon, we would pay, but beyond $2.50 diesel gallon, the cost will be borne by First Student.

Ø      Nathan sees this as a fair deal and they will increase driver’s pay as they have each year and we will allow them have 6 year old buses versus old contract allowing 5 year old buses.

Ø      Hope you are willing to go forward with this so can sign as soon as possible.

Ø      Motion by Dana Donovan, seconded by Kathy McNeill and unanimously voted by the chairs without further discussion to give Nathan and the superintendent the authority to sign a sixth year transportation contract with First Student.  The chairs commended Nathan on the excellent job he did.

• Proposed 2006-07 Calendar – Skip:

Ø      Reviewed process of setting calendar, especially in terms of SST students and the various districts that feed into their programs and the importance of having a common calendar.  Given the SST considerations, we then look at what serve the needs of our districts the best.

Ø      Up to individual boards as to what they want to have as early release days, but try to maintain two SAU or SAU/SES in-service days a year.  Explained the two possible in-service days in March and will either be looking at the 16^th as a SES in-service day that we are committed to, but have asked UNH if they would consider moving that day to the 13^th since some of SST schools close that day for voting.  Still awaiting their response.

Ø      Jerry noted that the October in-service day has changed from the first calendar draft from October 10^th to October 6^th to back up with the Columbus Day weekend.  Also reviewed the various early release days, now strategically placed to minimize interruption of educational process and also reduce the number of early release days.  Skip explained that the principals have not reviewed the calendar yet since we have not had the opportunity to share this since we have only recently been made aware of board members’ concerns about the number and placement of this year’s early release days.

Ø      Would like to take this or some reiteration of this to the Joint Board on Monday, 12/19.  This year we had seven early releases and this calendar reduces it by two.  If cannot get the SES day changed from March 16^th to March 13^th, Skip explained we do have commitment from SST schools that they will bus their SST students only on that day even though there schools are closed that day.

Ø      Consensus from group was to bring this calendar forward to Joint Board meeting.  Anne Marie noted she appreciated all the work Jerry did as he had heard the concerns of the Brentwood board over the earlier draft of the 2006-07 calendar.  Skip said he will be able to speak with principals before Joint Board meeting.

• Overview of New School – Walter: Had pictures of new site that he shared with everyone.  No logo on main field since four sports will be played on that field.  Heat is on in the building as of two weeks ago; casework begun; floor tile begun in D wing by locker rooms.  Next group tour is the second Tuesday of month at construction trailer at 7:30 AM.
• Jerry – deferred his time to Music presentation.
• Paul – recapped contract negotiations – ERCSD has settled; Exeter has settled; Newfields support staff have reached a deal and Friday is a mediation schedule for Coop paraeducators.
• Anne Marie asked that if paraeducators settle before next January’s Chairs meeting, could their new contract be on the agenda so it may be discussed since this will be the first paraeducator contract in the SAU.
• Paul reviewed the HQT status of elementary teachers and that state has come up with an option for those teachers that will not require them to take the Praxis II.

 

6.   Adjournment: Motion by Anne Marie Chesno, seconded by Dave Miller and unanimously voted without discussion to adjourn at 6:51 PM.

 

 

Minutes taken by S. Boyd