Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Student Data Privacy

As students, schools, and districts move more and more of their work online, ensuring data privacy has become a key issue. According to Steve Smith, Cambridge Public Schools addressed this issue before many other districts, and remains ahead of the curve in this regard, in part because families and the community had high expectations that they do so.

Steve is CPS Chief Information Officer and I recently had the occasion to meet and chat with him about his work in CPS and elsewhere. He came to lead CPS Information, Communications, and Technology Systems team seven years ago, which had been established some years before. He's passionate about helping all schools (not just CPS) become digitally and technologically savvy and he has worked in collaboration with districts and states to develop common standards for both expectations and best practices that ensure student data privacy.

Steve is also DESE's liaison to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the US and other nations. During the course of our meeting, Steve introduced me to some of the work he is leading and these are some of the links he shared as we discussed student data privacy:

  • Massachusetts Privacy Alliance (MSPA): The Alliance is a collaboration of school districts in the Commonwealth that share common concerns around student data privacy. There are currently about 40 districts in the Alliance. Their first outcome is the adoption and implementation of a common Student Data Privacy Agreement to be used by all member schools when implementing any online application.
  • Read the CPS White Paper on Balancing Innovation with Privacy HERE. The paper includes a list of relevant federal and state laws, CPS data systems, online "cloud services", CPS Web 2.0 procedures and case studies, and more.
  • Access 4 Learning Student Privacy Consortium is a unique, non-profit community of schools, districts, local authorities, states, US and International Ministries of Education, software vendors, and consultants who collectively address all aspects of learning information management and access to support learning.
  • The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) is the premier professional association for district technology leaders, including AASAASBO International, and ASCD. CoSN initiated the Trusted Learning Environment (TLE), a seal program that requires schools to have implemented student data privacy protections meeting a set of high standards around five core practice areas. Schools that demonstrate that they have met the Program's requirements are able to display the TLE Seal, signifying their commitment to student data privacy.
  • iKeepSafe focuses on healthy digital environments for educators, students, and families.

Additional resources I have come across (I invite you to please share your resources in the Comments section at the bottom of this post):

  • The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University's School of Law is a research center that engages in a wide spectrum of 'Net issues
  • Speaking of NASBE, they dedicated their May issue of the Standard to The Power of Data


Check your knowledge of these terms and acronyms*:
  • SEAs: State Education Agencies
  • LEAs: Local Education Agencies
  • SBEs: State Boards of Education
  • Big Data**: the term used to describe data sets so large they can only be analyzed by computers
  • Small Data**: a term coined by Martin Lindstrom; it is data that is small enough for human comprehension in a volume and format that is accessible, informative, and actionable
  • Analytics: the term used to describe how data is collected, analyzed, and used
  • PI: Personal Information
  • PII: Personally Identifiable Information
  • FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (of 1974) is a federal law designed to protect the privacy of student "educational records"; it established the rights of students to inspect and review their "educational records". It's outmoded for modern schools because they no longer have "educational records", they have "student data"
  • PPRA: Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (of 1978) is a federal law that affords certain rights to parents of minor students with regard to surveys that ask questions of a personal nature
  • COPPA: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (of 1998) is a federal law designed to protect the privacy of children under the age of 13
  • SOPIPA: Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (effective January 1, 2016), is a California law and the first state law to comprehensively address student privacy
  • PTAC: Privacy Technical Assistance Center at the US/ED provides guidance and best practices
- - -
* Many of these terms and acronyms were discussed last October at NASBE's pre-conference session on Student Data Privacy

** h/t to Tracy and Margaret, who attended MASBO's Annual Institute on the Cape earlier this month and shared this article on big and small data

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Special Meeting of the Board: Massachusetts Educator Evaluation

I find it difficult to both attend a meeting as a member of the Board and take notes of said meeting for a blog post, especially a post I hadn't decided to do until some time afterward. Ergo, there are holes. A very busy week, nonetheless, with two Board meetings and me trying to pull together my first slidedeck for a course I begin teaching next Tuesday...all this by way of apology for getting this post out so long after the fact. Do remember these are not "minutes" and any errors and/or misrepresentations are unintentional, but are mine.

This past Monday, May 23, the Department brought forward the topic of Educator Evaluation (Ed Eval) for a Special Meeting of the Board at 5:00 PM: "Educator Evaluation: Overview, Progress Report, and Key Issues - Discussion". The Board's agenda and back-up documents are HERE.

The Department presented a brief overview of the Ed Eval system that the Board adopted in 2011 as part of the run up for Race to the Top dollars. Senior Associate Commissioner of Instructional Support, Heather Peske opened with five key priorities that had been identified for MA's new system:
  • to promote growth and development
  • to place student learning at the center
  • to recognize excellence
  • to set a high bar for tenure and
  • to shorten timelines for improvement
To answer the question, "why a new Ed Eval system", Peske said that prior to 2012, evaluations rarely included student outcomes and rarely singled out excellence among educators. The system failed to ensure educator input or continuous improvement, she said, and failed to differentiate meaningfully between levels of effectiveness. By way of example, she offered: one district, a sample of 58 teacher evaluations looking at over 1,000 indicators of performance, resulted in only 1 indicator for 1 teacher rating that was less than satisfactory.

We heard from two panels. The first panel presented a statewide, national, and research view. Members of that panel included:
Parenthetically, Barbara Madeloni, President, Massachusetts Teachers Association, had been scheduled to be part of this panel, too. Prior to the Board of ESE meeting, she sent a joint letter to the Commissioner, copying the Board (letter was also signed by Tom Gosnell, President, AFT Massachusetts) explaining why she had decided not to participate. I have done a copy/paste of the content of her letter at the bottom of this post. Attached to Madeloni's email was an AFT/MTA white paper explaining why evaluating educators with statewide standardized test results is neither valid nor productive.

The Department shared the "staggered rollout" of the Ed Eval system:
  1. The first wave was with Level 4 schools and early adopter districts (2012-2013);
  2. The second was in districts that had signed on to the Race to the Top initiative (2013-2014);
  3. And in 2014-2015, the remaining districts with at least half of educators evaluated with the new system
I noted (according to DESE's handout) that since the first roll out, the number of "needs improvement" educators has steadily decreased: from 6.8% in 2012-13 to 4.1% in 2014-15. (At the NASBE Legislative Conference last month, I liveblogged the discussion with Charlotte Danielson about using state teacher evaluation systems to promote teaching and learning. Danielson said that most eval systems are for the 5-6%, not for the 94%.) 

Representing a national view was Kati Haycock, who commented that it was "evaluation season" at Ed Trust. She stated that self-reflection and quality feedback are important keys in the process there. About MA's system, she was emphatic in stating that we should "stay the course".

Haycock said that MA's system had "avoided the quagmire that other states had gotten into" through their "formulaic approach" of state imposed algorithms and "gotcha" nature to evals. 

Ross Wiener commented on the "priority of educator evaluation across the country. He talked of the importance of "valuing professional judgement, valuing growth and development, and valuing local control". He said the appreciates MA's "balanced approach" to evals and that the state avoided a "formulaic algorithm".

In response to Board questions, Haycock said there are two goals/reasons for Ed Evals:
  1. To grow the knowledge and skills of students. Here, she likened educators' love for teaching to nurses with a good bedside manner; a bedside manner is important but not sufficient for the job. Educators with content and curriculum strengths she likened to salespeople who know a lot about their product; knowledge of the product is important, but they are judged by how many times they made the sale. In each case, educators must be solid in their love for teaching and learning and in continuous improvement so that they can teach every child. She said [strong ed evals] isn't unlike physicians' ratings which are very tough and very important.
  2. Good evaluation systems are strong signaling systems about what's important. The strong ones focus on both the resources they have to give and the "bounce" one gets on productive efforts.
Ron Noble spoke to the Massachusetts policy; that Ed Evals have to be inclusive of a "body of evidence". That teachers and their evaluators approach evals in a "reflective, growth-oriented manner".

In response to a Board question, Haycock talked about the "issue of the moment" which she saw was the "focus on the achievement of low-income students, who are lagging substantially", and "the propensity to assign our least well-educated teachers to teach them". She said "we need to take responsibility for that", and that parents of students of color "won't be satisfied unless educators can accelerate the learning of students who come to school already behind". She said that what the adults and children are doing in MA is very powerful.

We next moved on to the second panel: Classroom, School, and District Perspectives - a much larger panel! I believe each person had four minutes to present their views.

Shakera Walker, Senior Manager of Teacher Leadership and Professional Development, BPS (also a member of the Educator Evaluation Task Force 2010-2011 - she was a teacher then):
  • Previously, Principals had been challenged to complete teacher evaluations; now they are being completed;
  • New evals offer Teacher voice and agency;
  • She receives quality feedback and there are high expectations for all;
  • In BPS, they use PAR (Peer Assistance and Review), an approach to peer mentoring and professional development.
Kate Fenton, Chief Instructional Officer, Springfield Public Schools:
  • There are 2,400 Teachers in SPS;
  • They have experienced accomplishments and challenges with the new system;
  • SPS implemented a 2-day inter-rater reliability certificate program;
  • [Fenton had more to say, but I didn't write it down. I do have an odd notation that I did write down, apparently attributable to her: School Improvement Grants @ Site Councils. This makes no sense to me, however.]
Gene Reiber, Teacher, Hanover Public Schools:
  • They have experiences positive changes in culture and climate;
  • Trying to identify "root causes" of student achievement (came about after they understood a too high number of students saying they experienced suicide ideation);
  • Reflection is a mindful part of this work (artifacts, data, student work);
  • Experienced anxiety at not having time for DDMs: compliance and PD.
Mike Sabin, Principal, McDevitt Middle School, Waltham:
  • Positives/Areas of Growth:
    • Spirit of continuous improvement;
    • Teacher voice, goals, self-assessment, examples of student learning;
  • Areas for Improvement:
    • Teacher with "Needs Improvement" at the end of the third year - especially if a Teacher has moved from one particular area to a new one in their third year (in their first year of a new role) - need not result in loss of hire, and the rubric doesn't account for this;
    • More resources are necessary;
      • He wants a great Teacher in every classroom - that requires better tools and resources;
    • Need to consider Principal work conditions and needs
      • Do the math and you can understand that it will take a good chunk of time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
      • Sabin is doing 14-16 evals/year; others noted that number has been as high as 35;
      • He said that it isn't difficult to imagine taking at least 20% of a Principal's time to do thoughtful, meaningful evaluations;
      • He also noted: "The culture of 'Needs Improvement' as a terrible thing is very strong".
Michelle Ryan, Teacher, Randolph Public Schools:
  • Implementation of Ed Evals has resulted in authentic, collaborative conversations
  • Common goals
  • She noted that she is able to talk with other teachers about tips they might have for her to fine tune her practice
  • Can applaud strengths and get support where necessary
  • Promotes risk-taking for assessments
  • Opportunities to be a mentor teacher at the educator preparation level
  • One of the challenges has been in the small number of administration able to take on the evals - need to make a role for instructional leader in order for rich conversations
  • They use "teach point" to upload their artifacts and sometimes uploading too many can be a problem
Kim Smith, Superintendent, Wakefield Public Schools:
  • WPS began implementing the new eval system during 2012-2013  school year;
  • They formed a Steering Committee of teachers and administrators and ultimately adopted the model system developed by DESE;
  • Then they chose to adapt the model rubrics, which proved important to a smooth implementation the following year because teachers had a voice in defining the language behind the system;
  • Union leadership and other educators helped refine rubrics to "make them our own", which led to deeper understanding, buy-in, and ownership;
  • The Steering Committee has continued to meet monthly over the past four years to provide recommendations for each new aspect of the system, including implementation of DDMs and student/staff feedback;
  • The committee also developed an Educator Resource Manual to assist faculty in navigating the new system, including homegrown forms, examples of evidence, and a DDMs orgainzational tool;
  • Smith believes that by owning the process they have avoided a "compliance mindset";
  • They asked, "How do we help educators view their practice through the lens of student performance, and examine ways that their instructional practice impacts student growth?"
  • Subsequently, they seized the opportunity of DESE's - for districts to build an alternative pathway;
  • They ended up creating a fifth standard (the state's rubric has four standards), which WPS saw as "what students do" - this focused the work on the relationship between teacher practice and student growth.
I don't remember who noted their "bias" regarding "training and support", but their district is addressing it.

Likewise, someone referred to the importance of "distributed leadership" and "differentiated support" - both seen as positive results of the evaluation implementation.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:03 PM.

- - -
Building a Breakthrough Framework for Educator Evaluation in the Commonwealth (Educator Evaluation Task Force final report; I was also a member of this Task Force)

MassPartners for Public Schools (referenced in Barbara Madeloni's letter below)
- - -
May 20, 2016


Dear Commissioner Chester,

We are writing to let you know of our concerns about Monday night’s panel on the Massachusetts Educator Evaluation system, and to inform you why I, Barbara, have decided not to participate.

The idea for a panel originated when Board of Elementary and Secondary Education member Ed Doherty informed you in March that he would like to invite members of MassPartners for Public Schools to a BESE meeting to discuss one aspect of the Educator Evaluation system: the mandate that District-Determined Measures and standardized test scores be used to generate a “student impact rating” of low, moderate or high for all licensed educators. The first such ratings are supposed to be issued this fall. As this deadline has approached, administrators and educators alike have become increasingly concerned that there is no valid, reliable and useful way to use these test scores in a meaningful evaluation system. In fact, there is concern that these ratings will do more harm than good.

We were disappointed that you decided not to focus on the impact rating but to broaden the discussion to the larger educator evaluation system. Our members do have a lot of views on the system as a whole. Deep reservations about it were expressed at recent MTA and AFT Massachusetts annual conventions. But we don’t want that longer and more complicated discussion to deflect you from our immediate concerns about the student impact rating mandate. This particular aspect of the evaluation system needs prompt attention because it is: (a) widely discredited as invalid and unreliable; (b) about to go into effect; and (c) no longer required by the federal government, with passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

If we had been able to have the discussion we wanted, we would have told the department and board about the widespread disapproval of the mandate among both evaluators and those being evaluated. We would have mentioned the recent New York court decision that found using these kinds of value-added measures to judge educators is invalid and unreliable. And we would have shared with you our position paper, produced by AFT Massachusetts and the MTA, which we are attaching to this email.

We repeat our request that you hold a hearing or panel discussion with the entire BESE on the impact rating issue in the very near future.  We will also welcome the opportunity at another time for Massachusetts educators and the associations that represent them to engage in a deeper conversation on the entire educator evaluation system.

Very truly yours,

Barbara Madeloni                                                                                            Thomas Gosnell
President                                                                                                            President
Massachusetts Teachers Association                                                      AFT Massachusetts

cc: Members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Strong Families, Strong Schools

Based on my keynote at the Family Leadership Conference, Saturday, May 21, 2016.
When our eldest entered school, I wanted to know his teachers, the principal, and other families* in our neighborhood. I'm on the state Board of Ed now as the Parent Representative and I'm there with no particular education expertise to speak of, but by virtue of having a child in the public schools at the time I was appointed by Governor Deval L. Patrick in August 2014.
I've learned quite a lot about our children and our schools over the years as a parent, as a former Lexington School Committee Member and Chair, and as a past state PTA president. I want to share some of what I've learned about what it means - and why it's important - for modern families to be engaged in their child's education.
Over forty years of research demonstrates that when families are engaged in their children's education, student achievement and graduation rates increase and this holds true regardless of a parent's level of education, country of origin, or socio-economic status.
Schools need families to help close learning gaps, and we all need to work together to help our schools fulfill the promise that public education holds for every child, but what is it supposed to look like?
I attended a conference a while back that was focused on helping families help their children succeed at school. I didn't write down who the speaker was, but I did write what was said, and it reveals some profound indicators for families and schools:
In the homes of high-achieving children, the academic climate is in sync with the academic climate found in their schools. And together, they generate a series of attitudes and beliefs, skills and motivations that lead to higher achievement of many kinds.
With the federal update of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the language for families has been sharpened from "family involvement" to "family engagement". It's a challenging provision because we all know how busy families are these days.

Modern family engagement is not a checklist; it's about building relationships with families for student success no matter the family's culture, language, or socio-economic status. It's about understanding and co-constructing complementary roles, but before you can get there, you have to establish some core beliefs. This is what the book Beyond the Bake Sale is all about.


In Bake Sale, the authors share 4 Core Beliefs which are the four corners of family-school partnerships. I highly recommend reading and discussing the book in mixed teams: of parents, teachers, building leaders, custodians, secretaries, school committee members, selectmen, faith-based and community-base leaders, etc., because the whole community shares a role in student success.
Sharing responsibility means families become full partners with schools in an integrated, strategic way for students, not as a stand alone event, or a thing that a school or individual does. Effective family engagement is woven into everything the school does.
Approaching relationships with families in this way is to focus on a strength-based model, wherein family engagement is systemic and integrated, not something added to an already full plate; it's the sauce that brings everything together.
Shared responsibility is continuous across a child's life - from birth through adult - and it happens everywhere children learn: at home, in pre-kindergarten programs, before- and after-school programs, in school, and in faith-based and community-based programs and activities. Shared responsibility is identified as having three dimensions:
  1. Opportunities: where schools and communities provide opportunities for family engagement;
  2. Roles: where families, schools, and communities co-create responsibilities for student success;
  3. Learning: where families, schools, and communities take stock to learn and improve practice.
Modern families engage with schools and communities to support children's learning, guide them through a complex school system, advocate for more and improved learning opportunities, and collaborate and communicate effectively with school and community partners.
Modern schools engage with families and communities in order to build relationships, communicate effectively, provide activities that link to learning and address differences, and support advocacy and share power.
* * *
* "Parent" or "family" refers to the adult/s who serve a care-giving role in a child's life.
ADDITIONAL SELECTED RESOURCES
  1. 1647: 1647families.org 
  2. Building Capacity for Family Engagement: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/14/11/building-capacity-family-engagement 
  3. Family Engagement in Anytime, Anywhere Learning: http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/fckeditor/File/Family%20Engagement%20in%20Anywhere%20Anytime%20Learning_HarvardFamilyResProj.pdf  
  4. Harvard Family Research Project: hfrp.org
  5. Massachusetts Parent and Community Education and Involvement Advisory Council: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/parent/ (See Family, School, and Community Partnership Fundamentals: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/parent/FSCPfundamentals.pdf)
  6. National Association for Family and Community Education (NAFCE): nafce.org
  7. National Parent Teacher Association (National PTA): pta.org
  8. The Equity and Excellence Commission Report to Education Secretary Arne Duncan: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/equity-excellence-commission-report.pdf

Family Leadership Conference

Saturday, May 21, 2016 - Plymouth North High School, Plymouth MA
I was honored to keynote the inaugural Family Leadership Conference, a free, half-day conference presented by the Plymouth Public Schools (PPS) in collaboration with many volunteers and community organizations - and linked to the PPS Strategic Plan (2016-2020)!
"The mission of the Conference is to provide training, information, and assistance to equip families with strategies to successfully support children." The conference offered a format for participants to learn about building positive relationships, supporting early literacy development, understanding the district's curriculum and instruction, parenting, nutrition, wellness, and more. Presentations were offered by educators and community organizations and targeted for various school levels - elementary, middle/high, all levels.
Following registration, coffee, and time for networking, PPS Assistant Superintendent Dr. Chris Campbell kicked off the conference with a warm welcome to all conference attendees. Chris introduced Plymouth School Committee member Kim Savery Hunt who then introduced me.
Following my keynote, sixteen workshop/presentations were offered twice during the morning. Here's a sample:
  • Elementary Focus
    • Building Positive Parent/Teacher Partnerships: Lead by an Elementary  School Counselor and two Elementary School Teachers. They discussed why it's important to build a parent/teacher partnership, how to approach and interact with your child's teacher/school, and how to handle difficult situations with your child's teacher/school.
    • Supporting early Literacy at Home: Presented by two PPS District Literacy Coaches, the focus was to learn a variety of strategies for helping children develop into strong and confident readers and writers.
  • Middle/High School Focus
    • Middle School Transitions: Lead by Plymouth South Middle School Counselor and Principal, focused on adolescent development to understand social, emotional, and academic transitions students experience between grades 5-8 and how parents can support their children through these pivotal years.
    • Prevention Resources and Education for Parents (PREP): Lead by the Regional Director of Caron Treatment Center, the program provides information on effects and consequences of gateway drugs and other drug trends, and to empower parents with effective communication skills when talking with their kids about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.
  • All Levels
    • Building Relationships with Decision-Makers: I was happy to co-present this session with Stephanie Gray, Plymouth resident and President of Massachusetts PTA and Kim Savery Hunt, Plymouth School Committee Member/Secretary. We had a small group of attendees, that included parents Justin and Elisha (who have so much experience advocating on behalf of children in PPS, they could easily have lead a workshops of their own!), so we formed a circle for an intimate conversation about improving communications with stakeholders across the school district.
    • Learning Through Gardening: Lead by the Co-Founder and Director of Education for Terra Cura, Inc, about community gardening, permaculture, healthy eating, and environmental stewardship.
The inaugural conference was excellent, ambitious, and well organized. I look forward to future conferences and hope to see more parents and, perhaps, high school students encouraged to participate and lead sessions, too!

Crossposted to MAStewartMA.wordpress.com

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The Fair Share Amendment

The Legislature meets in a Formal Joint Session this afternoon, scheduled for 1:00 PM, to consider a vote on the Fair Share Amendment.

In the last few days, an organization opposing the Amendment has sent out a scurrilously misleading and inflammatory mailing, district-wide, in the districts of several Legislators who have publicly supported the Amendment; my representative, Jay Kaufman, House Co-Chair of the Joint Revenue Committee, is one of them. I hope Rep.Kaufman and his colleagues who have been targeted have heard that their constituents want them to support the Amendment!

If the measure passes, this is what the Amendment will do*:

The proposed constitutional amendment would establish an additional 4% state income tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. This income level would be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the cost of living by the same method used for federal income-tax brackets. Revenues from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, only for public education, public colleges and universities, the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. The proposed amendment would apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

Since this is an amendment to the state constitution, the Legislature needs to approve the measure in two successive constitutional conventions ("ConCon") before it can appear on the ballot for final approval in November 2018. We actually only need 25% support in the Legislature on each occasion, but I hope we do far better than that.

*The language of the proposed constitutional amendment, approved by the Attorney General's Office last fall.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Annual & Special Town Meetings

Meeting just called to order by Deputy Moderator, Barry Orenstein.

Updating as we go.

Tonight's Annual & Special Town Meeting 
is expected to cover the remaining articles:

ATM:
Article 12 - Wastewater System Improvements
Yes=138
No=1
Abstain=0
APPROVED


Article 45 - Amend Zoning Bylaw - Brookhaven (to be referred back to Planning Board to complete negotiations)
by Voice Vote - APPROVED

Motion to dissolve 2016 Annual Town Meeting
by Voice Vote - APPROVED

Moving on quickly to STM 2016-4:
Article 5: Purchase of Belmont Country Club Land (to be indefinitely postponed)
Report of the Capital Expenditures Committee received and placed on file.

TMM: asks School Committee about enrollment relative to this site.
SC Chair: We have enrollment projections; for 5-10 years from now would be pure conjecture and speculative
TMM: I don't find this answer at all helpful. How good are our school enrollment predictions?
SC Chair: The second part of your first question - we do not have other sites to use for new school.
TMM: Anyone looking into this site for possible use by the schools?
SC Chair: The Committee hasn't discussed it.
BoS Chair: Board of Selectmen is actively looking for school sites - we will be taking up one such site a little later.

Q from TMM: Why was it considered that this parcel of land was not considered viable for school or other Town purposes?
BoS Chair: WRT school uses, there are topographical problems with the site for school use; no adequate access to school fields.
TMM: Are there any restrictions as to what Montessori School can do with this land?
BoS Chair: None at this time.
TMM: What is the zoning?
BoS Chair: Residential.

TMM Q: Should we IP this at this point because easements are not yet set?
BoS Chair: Right of First Refusal expires at the end of the week - no time to IP.
TMM: Does it make sense if the BoS have not finalized negotiations with the Montessori School?
Bos Chair: Right of First Refusal is with the Belmont Country Club
TMM: Why is there no loss of opportunity for the Town?
Bos Chair: The Town is in the middle of negotiations
TMM: I don't believe we have an answer.

TMM Calls the Question
APPROVED
Vote on the question by Voice Vote - APPROVED
Vote to dissolve STM-4
APPROVED


STM 2016-2 called to order
Article 2: Land Purchase - 20 Pelham Road
For land acquistion, and associated design, engineering, and architectural services for plans and specifications and related costs in connection with the property.

Report of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) received and placed on file
APPROVED

Report of the Appropriation Committee (AC) received and placed on file
APPROVED

Report of the Board of Selectmen (BoS) by Chair, Joe Pato:
  • Pelham property is an $8 million appropriation
  • Negotiations are not yet complete - will explain
  • Part of the School Master Planning: Location, flexibility, opportunity
To ReCap:
  • Pelham property is an $8 million appropriation - for purchase site and engineering
  • Appraisal, highest and best use
  • Additional costs to renovate/rebuild on site
Timeline for Acquisition and Reuse:
  • negotiations to purchase began in December 2015
  • Selectmen will take by eminent domain if purchase and sale agreement not reached shortly
  • Begin reuse/engineering analysis in fall 2016
BoS is in unanimous support (5-0)
CEC majority supports the project
AC majority (8-1) supports the project; must proceed in a timely manner when properties like this come up
SC is unanimously in support; critical need (5-0)
Planing Board recommends approval (4-1)

6 TMMs queued behind the Q mic

Citizen Q: Represents the Armenian Sisters Academy.

TMM Q: If Town acquires this property by eminent domain, how much?
BoS Chair: Fair-market value, based on appraisals
TMM: 2nd Q is would it be used for a new school?
BoS Chair: There is an existing plan with MSBA-funded Hastings School - this will not adjust that project. Additional space is needed and there are several options available for the schools. Until we proceed with this, the actual costs are not known. Per classroom costs at Pelham are lower than per classroom costs at other sites.
TMM: How will we pay?
BoS Chair: Asking for Debt; going forward, we will come forward in the future with a Debt-exclusion - something the BoS at the time would call for.

TMM Q: You mentioned the adequacy of the site for a 24 section - will that require a waiver from the state/
BoS Chair: I refer to the School Department
SC Chair: We understand that if we go with MSBA, have to follow certain guidelines; if we go it ourselves, we do not have to follow those guidelines.
TMM: Does the proposed purchase include the convent?
BoS: The article on the Warrant is for 20 Pelham Road, the school only
TMM: How this compares with non-excluded debt
BoS: Please recognize Mr. Addleson
Addleson: On average, within levy of debt-funded capital, we will issue  ~$6M, so this will exceed

TMM Q: Does the existence of asbestos and PCBs on the current school property, mean we will have a leg up on its replacement?
BoS Chair: Please recognize Mr. Goddard
Pat Goddard: In the SOI process, there's qualifications for how MSBA prioritizes projects - health is one of the priorities. We have not occupied the property at the time of purchase, so probably not.

TMM Q: Skeptical that this would be used for a school since it cannot hold an athletic field, and that it would more likely be used as an administration building
SC Chair: That would be the least likely scenario.
TMM: Would you build a school without an athletic field and if so, how would you address that?
SC Chair: We are very fortunate in this Town to have fields on every school. We haven't discussed that for this property.

TMM at No Mic: I'm troubled by the process that has lead to this. There has been no public process at all. I'm concerned given the price tag - and we don't even know the price. The existing building is in very tough shape. It could be used for affordable housing.

TMM at Yes Mic: I rise in support and hope TMMs will join me. In this case we have a unique opportunity. If we don't buy this, it will become a housing development that we will have no control over.

TMM Q: Of the $8M amount, how much is for purchase?
BoS: We're still in negotiations on the price.
TMM: How is that area zoned?
BoS: REsidential
TMM: Thank you.

TMM Q: Has the SC done the analysis of the operating costs?
SC Chair: Additional school, or spaces, are the same - principal, secretary, educators; heating and other utilities.
Mr. Goddard: Last fall the Superintendent and I looked at utilities, custodians, educational - operational costs - about $500,000
TMM: I'm going to oppose this. We should not think of this as a 7th school. Economics, access (~$3M or more), really not a good investment for TM to authorize.

TMM at No: I was first excited. Then, I learned there was asbestos and lead. Means it is a tear-down. On top of the middle school renovations and other Town capital projects.

TMM Q: Am I correct that I read that the Superintendent stated that this was not an appropriate location for a school?
SC Chair: She's shaking her head NO that she did not say that.
TMM: What did she say?
SC Chair: Supt has indicated to me that she needs to see the article, she's not aware.

TMM Q: Does the Town hold any land previously purchased for the contingent use at any of the school sites?
SC Chair: I believe the Laconia site.
TMM: Has anyone done a direct comparison between economic development housing and school?
BoS Chair: We have not. We also have land directly across from the high school - it is not deemed appropriate for an elementary school.

Citizen Q: I've ooked through the reports done by DiNisco; - you've heard about the asbestos, lead paint, PCBs which will require abatement. These are significant costs. We should be looking at this with our eyes open. ~$2M for abatement & remediation, $3M for access;

TMM at Yes: Reminds me of the land purchase for the golf course years ago. Do not repeat the delay and subsequent high  purchase.

TMM Q: If we take the property by eminent domain - how would that be paid for since this would authorize $8M?
Addleson: Court judgement of $10M would mean additional appropriation at a subsequent TM
TMM: So, we would be on the hook for more?
Addleson: Yes.

TMM at Yes: Cost and environmental concerns - appeal to the thought that we are not going to have another site. Students are already here and more are coming. I hope you will join me in voting yes.

TMM Q: If we assume that the building can be renovated and abated/remediated - will the site support an 18-section elementary school?
Goddard: We went through several scenarios last September. We would be able to mitigate - would need to figure out the plan we would be mitigating for. Could also be a site for the Lexington Children's Pre-school
TMM: Are the facilities sufficient for larger school?
Goddard: We would have to demolish for a larger school + parking + access for buses.
TMM: As a 7th elementary school, why is this  property better than the Laconia property? Aside from its central location?
Goddard: It's not very level - very sloped property - would have to create a series of plateaus. No utilities; no access. Pelham is level;

TMM Q: The other properties - can we sell them to help pay for this?
BoS Chair: With TM approval, we could choose to sell, but not without coming back to TM
TMM: Any notion as to how much money we could realize?
BoS Chair: No.
TMM: I think we should buy this parcel for all of the reasons already stated. This is our opportunity to do it. I would like to see these other sites sold.

TMM at Yes: Because I just don't see a downside to this.

TMM calls the Question
APPROVED
Final comments from BoS Chair - no additional comments
Requires 2/3 majority to pass
Yes=130
No=26
Abstain=3
APPROVED

BoS Chair, Joe Pato: Thanks to my colleagues. Board reorganized this evening. Selectman Suzie Barry is the new BoS Chair.

Deputy Town Moderator calls for motion to dissolve STM 2016-2
APPROVED

Declared dissolved 9:18 PM (unofficial)

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Raise Up MA Community Briefing, Bedford

Middlesex Community College, Cafe East, 10:30-12:00
Live-blogging, updating as we go.
Welcome from Margaret Heitz of Lexington.
There are 11 Community Briefings scheduled across the Commonwealth, for folks to speak to representatives and to hear from them about what they are focusing on.
Just completed a busy time on budgeting.
Raise Up MA (RUM) is a coalition of more than 50 organizations committed to building an economy that invests in families, gives everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates broadly shared prosperity. The coalition works to pass laws, through the Legislature or at the ballot box, that support working families with jobs that pay a living wage and policies that allow them to balance work and family. To support important investments in the people and our communities, RUM believes everyone should be asked to pay their fair share.
RUM Agenda includes:
  • A Constitutional Amendment to support education and transportation infrastructure
  • A Living Wage for Big Box Retail and Fast Food Emloyees
  • Paid Family and Medical Leave
Representatives currently present: Rep. Sean Garballey, Arlington.
Rep. Garballey is strongly supportive of Raise Up MA's agenda. Need folks to speak up to their reps for their support for critical investment in education and transportation. Next steps: Constitutional Convention (ConCon) - take votes to support. Important to call your reps now, ask them to support the amendment. Lobby hard now. If you don't know your rep - get to know them now. Develop a relationship with them. Call them. Ask them not only for a commitment to vote for your issue, but to work for it - news, facebook, twitter - that's how we get these issues to pass.
Margaret reports that Rep. Dave Rogers is unable to join. Sends his regrets.
Benjamin Chandhok, staffer for Rep.Jay Kaufman who couldn't be here. He is traveling back from a conference. Rep Kaufman's agenda mirrors Raise Up MA's. MA has a flat income tax. Rising inequality - Jay wants everyone to pay. Call Jay. Call your reps. Income inequality, transportation/infrastructure, education have gotten worse since ballot for grad tax [This initiative isn't about a grad tax].
Mary from Sudbury: problems in education funding - need the Fair Share Amendment.
Richard from Lexington: language issue within Constitution?
Community member: brilliance of the Constitutional Amendment is in its simplicity, its language to implement.
Ben: Lobby your reps to implement. ConCon is May 18 at 12:30 at the State House.
Carl Nillson: Constitution will say [after it's amended] that the money will go to education and transportation. We all worked together to gather signatures. Will we want it to go to bridges? Roads? Pre-K? That is up to us, the People. Our work won't be over once the constitution is amended and approved [at the ballot box in November 2018].
Members from various communities share what the RUM Agenda means to them:
  • Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC) recommendations released, impress legislators of need for increased education funding;
  • disgusting that we don't have Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML);
  • need to keep business' feet to the fire for PFML;
  • lots of people are working and can't afford food, need SNAP benefits - need for $15 living wage;
  • transpo/infrastructure so important, extend Green Line T
  • sinkhole in Springfield - infrastructure critical safety issue
Reps. Ken Gordon (Bedford), Jim Dwyer (Woburn), Dave Rogers (Arlington) unable to be here. Contact them and let them know you were here.
Meeting adjourns 11:30 AM