NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2007
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 8, 2007
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. John Decker, Chair Mr. Michael Koester (Excused)
Ms. Mary Bonser, BOS Representative Mr. Kurt Duprey (Excused)
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Representative Ms. Charlene Andersen (Excused)
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Philip Fernald
Mr. Kyle Barry
Mr. Chet Batchelder
Ms. Gail Powell
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent SAU #44
Ms. Jean Parsons, Special Education Director SAU #44
Dr. Robert Koenig, Curriculum Coordinator
Mr. Terry Bonser, School Board
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Powell made a motion that the Budget Committee defer the approval of the minutes from the September 27, 2007 Budget Committee meeting. Mr. Curry seconded the motion.
Mr. Decker said that he really did not like to defer approval of the minutes. Mr. Curry noted that there were several people present at this meeting that had not been present at the previous meeting. Ms. Powell said that she did not want to rush discussion of the minutes and she was in favor of deferring them.
Ms. Powell, Ms. Plante, Mr. Curry, Mr. Fernald and Mr. Barry voted in favor of the motion to defer the minutes. Mr. Decker and Mr. Batchelder voted against the motion to defer the minutes. Ms. Bonser abstained from the motion to defer the minutes. The motion passed 5-2 with one abstention.
PRESENTATION ON ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS:
Ms. Plante said that Ms. McGann, the Superintendent had come to speak to the Budget Committee regarding adequate yearly progress and the "No Child Left Behind" law. She said that the adequate yearly progress requirements were tied to the law and she said that the Nottingham School had not met them two years in a row.
Ms. McGann gave out a packet about the "No Child Left Behind" law and she explained the responsibilities that the school district had as a "school/district in need of improvement." She said that the SAU had to look at scientifically based research regarding reading programs. She discussed the definition of scientifically based research. Mr. Decker noted that Nottingham School had missed AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) in reading two years in a row, he asked if they had missed AYP in any other subjects. Ms. McGann said no. She said that the tests were only offered in reading and math and she said that the school had met the requirements in math. Ms. McGann explained the testing a little more thoroughly. She said that the testing was done for grades 3-8 and the students were
considered in one of several groups for purposes of the test. She stated examples of those groups as being "economically disadvantaged" and "learning disadvantaged." She noted that only one of those groups in Nottingham had not met the AYP requirements but all the groups needed to make it in order for the school to be considered having met the requirements as a whole. She said that because Nottingham had not met the AYP requirements so they needed to create a reading program. She said that if a school or district missed the requirements two years in a row, they became a school or district "in need of improvement." She explained that the government had done research on reading programs and that they had four approved programs and she stated that as a school/district in need of improvement, Nottingham needed to choose one of those programs.
Ms. Bonser asked why Nottingham was not already using one of the four approved programs. She noted that this was the second year in a row the school had not made AYP so they had a year when they could have started one of those programs. Ms. McGann noted that new reading programs are expensive and they require extensive research. She also said that the reading program the school was currently using had been in place for ten years. Dr. Koenig said that the Literacy Collaborative might have looked good ten years ago but he said that in the year 2000 the National Institute of Health had looked at reading programs and found five key areas. He noted that those key areas were, Alphabetics (Phonemic Awareness Instruction and Phonics Instruction), Fluency, Comprehension (including vocabulary), Teacher Education and
Reading Instruction, Computer Technology and Reading Instruction. He noted that there had been increased Title One funding and he said that each state set their own standards under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. He said that Nottingham had a hardworking staff, eight or nine subcommittees discussing this topic and a Literacy Leadership Team. He said that they had already started looking at the alternative programs. He said that the subcommittees had good discussions and their members had been visiting other schools and seeing presentations. He said that the school was planning to field test a program later in the year.
Dr. Koenig noted that Nottingham students had made progress in most areas of the test. He noted that it was possible for a school to have a reading program that worked well for average kids but didn't work so well for special education students. Ms. Powell asked how the other schools in the SAU handled choosing a reading program. Dr. Koenig said that the two other schools/districts in the SAU used the same reading program. He said that they were continuing to train staff in using it. He said that they had seen significant savings because they had been ordering larger numbers of materials. He said that the company was holding the price in case Nottingham decided to use the program but he said that each School Board needed to judge for themselves which was the best program. He said that the committees
would present their recommendation for a new reading program in March. Mr. Curry said that the school/district had known they didn't make AYP the previous year and they had known that the other schools/districts in the SAU were using the same program so he asked why Nottingham had not adopted the program a year ago. Dr. Koenig said that the district had invested heavily in the Literacy Collaborative Program and they had thought that they could tinker with what they had in order to make it work better. He said that ultimately the Literacy Collaborative was weak in phonics and heavy in comprehension.
Ms. McGann said that the students took the standardized test in October and the results came back to the school in January and then they had been declared a school "in need of improvement" on August 28th. She said that it took missing AYP requirements for two years in a row to become a school "in need of improvement" and it took meeting the requirements two years in a row to get off the school "in need of improvement" list. She said that the students were currently taking the test and their target score was 86. She said that they needed to score above 86 to pass AYP. Mr. Decker said that if they got below an 86 they would be at risk of missing their AYP requirements again so he said that they must have known when they got their scores in January that they were at risk of missing their AYP
requirements. Ms. McGann said that was not necessarily the case because it had to do with things like state averages.
Dr. Koenig said that Nottingham was already taking substantial steps toward a solution. He said that they were working on data analysis and an improvement plan. He said that after three and four years on the school "in need of improvement" list, schools are required to choose a new program. He noted that Nottingham was doing that after only two years of being on the list. Ms. McGann briefly explained the New Hampshire accountability requirements and the steps the Nottingham School would be going through in the process of trying to improve their reading scores. She also explained the acronyms SINI (School in Need of Improvement) and DINI (District in Need of Improvement). She explained that since Nottingham was a separate district with only one school, since their school did not meet the AYP
requirements, they automatically became a district "in need of improvement" as well. She explained that in larger districts, children had the option of switching out of schools that did not meet the requirements but she said that since Nottingham only had one school in the district, that was not an option. Ms. McGann said that Nottingham had a "Root Cause Analysis Committee" which included a consultant from the state that was looking into causes for the school having not met AYP requirements. She said that the state gave them $5,000 to help fund this process. She said that their administrative teams had already met with the state three times regarding this issue and they had another meeting scheduled for the following week. She said that some staff members had been very enthusiastically working on this project and they had invested a lot of time. She said that they were developing an improvement plan based on data
collected.
Mr. Decker asked if there were specific steps that the team needed to go through. Dr. Koenig explained the process that the Root Cause Analysis Committee went through during their meetings. He said that they did a lot of brainstorming and came up with hypotheses. He said that then they asked questions like whether their hypotheses had an impact and whether their teachers had control over the particular issue stated in the hypothesis. He said that the committee than rated the hypotheses and gave them an order of priority. He said after that they took each hypothesis and dug deeper into it. He said that it was a very elaborate process. Ms. McGann said that the district would get $25,000 to use for supporting their improvement plan and for buying materials. She said that improvement plans needed
to be sent to the state. She said that the district would get the money in January and they would need to spend it by the end of August.
Ms. McGann noted that only seven schools in New Hampshire had come off of the schools "in need of improvement" list and they expected thirty schools to get onto the list. She said that they expected every district to be on the district "in need of improvement" list by 2014. Mr. Decker asked how many schools were on the schools "in need of improvement" list and Ms. McGann said that she wasn't sure. She said that it was around 50% of the schools in the state. Ms. Parsons noted that a flaw in the system was that the tests did not measure for improvement in the same children. She said that the results were always comparing different students. She also noted that the same test was given to the Special Education students which was given to the general student population.
Mr. Decker asked what grades were given the standardized tests. Ms. McGann said that students in grades 3-8 and in grade 10 took the test. She said that the tests were in the subjects of math and reading but she stated that science tests would be added soon. She said that the Education Commissioner had wanted to create a growth plan which would compare the same students. She said that the federal government had rejected the proposal. She said that the Commissioner had made changes to his proposal and resubmitted it. She said that the federal government had rejected it again.
Ms. McGann said that the district needed to be careful of media reporting on the tests because the students would read the newspaper and harass each other. She said that there had been incidents of students blaming other students for being the reason the school did not meet their AYP requirements.
Ms. McGann said that the federal government had done research on reading programs and she said that Nottingham was moving forward in a positive way. She said that the best practices would be implemented. She said that overall the districts in the SAU should get $820,000 in grants. She said that all grants were handled through the SAU. She noted that money for a program called IDEA had been cut and they had needed to cut positions.
Mr. Decker asked if Northwood was in the same predicament as Nottingham regarding missing their AYP requirements two years in a row. Ms. McGann said yes.
Ms. McGann said that 20% of the Nottingham School population was eligible for free or reduced lunch and she explained that Nottingham was part of a state initiative called "Follow The Child." She said that program correlated with the basic needs of human development. She said that the SAU was also doing SAU wide teacher workshop training. She said that helped the teachers compare notes and learn from each other.
Ms. Parsons said that the federal government could possibly cut Medicaid. She said that such a cut might come soon. Ms. Bonser asked when they would hear about that for sure. The Special Education Director said that according to the rumors, it could be as early as November.
Ms. McGann said that she would just like to give the Budget Committee an idea of the cost of reading programs. She said that a program for grades K-4 had costed at $60,000 and had come in at $40,000. She noted that was just an example.
DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULE:
Ms. McGann said that the school district would report to the Budget Committee at the end of November and all their numbers would be in. She said that the School Board wanted to present one budget document instead of having to present several drafts with changes. She said that the teachers would have their budgets submitted on October 12, 2007 and the School Board would spend two meetings reviewing them before presenting them to the Budget Committee. She said that they should have the final number for the SAU budget by the end of November as well. She said that whatever the School District used for data would be included in a package of information for the Budget Committee. Mr. Decker asked if the School Board planned to present their complete budget to the Budget Committee on November 29, 2007. Ms. Plante
said that the School Board had felt really strongly that they wanted to present a complete packet to the Budget Committee.
Mr. Decker said that he would still request that the Budget Committee see the default budget in advance. Ms. McGann said that it was the School Board's decision whether or not to give the Budget Committee an early copy of the default budget. Mr. Batchelder said that he liked the concept of the Budget Committee receiving a complete budget packet but he said that he was concerned. He asked whether they abbreviated time schedule for SB2 districts had been taken into account. Ms. Powell said that she really thought the School District should try to get done with a draft of their budget by November 15, 2007. She noted that health insurance information came in mid-November. Ms. McGann noted that you needed to base the budget numbers on the students that you had.
Mr. Batchelder said that he was willing to try this new idea of getting all the budget numbers at once but he said that if this did not work, the School Board needed to start earlier in developing their budget the following year. Ms. Powell said that the Budget Committee needed to have further discussion on this. She said that if the Budget Committee did not have time to properly review the budget numbers they would vote against them. She suggested that maybe the district could present something more final than they thought at an earlier date. Mr. Batchelder suggested that maybe the School Board could do some early briefings on their information without using numbers just so that everyone knew what items were in certain lines and how the process worked, etc. Ms. McGann said that as soon as the district got
information, they would share it with the Budget Committee. She said that the SAU building would be going up for sale. She said that the SAU rented the building and so that was an unknown. She also said that they were busting at the seams with their preschool. She said that she had given the presentation to the Budget Committee about AYP so that they would know the processes and procedures that the school/district needed to follow. She said that the exact reading program that the school would be using might not be determined by the end of the budget season but she said that the price would be in the budget.
Mr. Decker said that the Budget Committee would have the entire month of December to review the complete budget if it were presented on November 29, 2007. He said that they would technically be ahead of the game if the budget presented was in fact final. He said that he was willing to try this experiment because he felt that if it worked well it would be worth the risk. Mr. Batchelder asked if the School Board could forward the default budget to the Budget Committee in advance. Mr. Decker said that the School Board should review, approve and present the default budget to the Budget Committee.
Ms. McGann said that the district enrollment analysis should be in to the School Board in early November. Mr. Fernald asked how many kids were in Nottingham School. Mr. Bonser said that there were 507. Mr. Fernald asked how many students were in Kindergarten. Ms. Plante said that there were fewer than during the previous year but she said that many working parents did not send their children to public Kindergarten because it was only half a day and that made child care arrangements difficult.
FINAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL STATEMENT (2005-2006 SCHOOL YEAR):
Mr. Decker said that he would like to see the final numbers after the audit was completed.
Ms. McGann said that there was a new law which stated that children needed to stay in high school until they were 18. She said that they could now track students who left the district. She said that a program called Tech Path allowed the SAU to look at all the student score data. She said that there had also been data which showed that attendance did make a difference. She said that every student absent more than 10 days was in the lowest level of scores.
Mr. Curry asked if this was a typical surplus. Ms. Plante said no. She said that this surplus was atypical and it had been an unusual year. She said that they had less students in high school than they had anticipated and the tuition cost had come in lower than they had planned. She said that the rest of the surplus had come from personnel and health care changes. She also noted that if Special Education children who need special services move out of town the district no longer needs to cover the costs of those services. She also noted that the district was using a new accounting system and they were all still getting used to how it worked. Ms. McGann noted that the district had to budget based on their current Special Education population but she said that if even one child with severe disabilities
moved into town the placement of that child could cost as much as $100,000. Mr. Decker noted that Special Education costs could have big swings in either direction. He asked if the number shown was the final surplus number. Ms. Plante said that it was final based on appropriations.
Ms. Plante said that there were some things that the Budget Committee needed to keep in mind when trying to predict a future surplus amount. She said that the 8th grade class was larger than the 8th grade class had been the previous year. She said that it had grown from two homerooms to three. She said that it was almost certain that the SAU would need new housing and she noted that they had been paying a discounted rate for rent so their costs were virtually certain to increase. She also said that the paraeducators in Nottingham had unionized so those costs were likely to increase as well.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE:
Mr. Decker said that the Capital Improvement Plan Committee had representatives from the Board of Selectmen, the Budget Committee, the Planning Board and the Building Committee. Mr. Curry noted that the people had voted to make the Capital Improvement Committee a separate independent committee. Mr. Decker said that the committee should have one more member but they had always had four members.
Ms. Bonser said that the capital improvement forms would be given to the department heads and they would get those back to the committee by November 1, 2007.
Mr. Decker said that because he had been elected Chair of the Budget Committee, he no longer had the time to be the Budget Committee representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Mr. Batchelder agreed to take over as the representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee.
Ms. Bonser nominated Chet Batchelder to be the Budget Committee Representative to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee. Ms. Plante seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Mr. Decker said that he would recommend that the Capital Improvement Plan Committee ask the School Board to supply a representative as well.
FIRE STATION UPDATE:
Ms. Bonser said that the Building Inspector would be doing a final walk through of the new fire station soon. She said that there would be an open house for the public to see the new building on November 4, 2007 from 1:00pm-4:00pm. She said that the ribbon cutting would be at 2:00pm during the open house. She said that the fire station was not over budget. She said that it was estimated that it would come in under budget and that it would be finished on time.
TOWN BUDGET SCHEDULE DISCUSSION:
Ms. Bonser noted the dates that the town should be ready to discuss their budget. The Budget Committee noted that the town department heads would be presenting their budgets to the Budget Committee on December 6, 2007.
FYI:
Ms. Bonser said that there would be a closing on the Mulligan Forest property in November.
MEETING CANCELLATION:
The Budget Committee decided that they did not have anything on the agenda for their planned second meeting in October.
Ms. Powell made a motion that the Budget Committee cancel their meeting scheduled for October 25, 2007. Ms. Plante seconded that motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Mr. Curry left the meeting at 9:50pm.
MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION:
Ms. Powell said that she had talked to Ms. Christine Fillimore from the New Hampshire Municipal Association. She said that Ms. Fillimore's suggestions to their concerns about getting information from other boards and committees were that they should remind the other committees of the RSA which governed information for the Budget Committee. She said that Ms. Fillimore had suggested the Budget Committee could write a memo giving this information if they felt it was necessary. She also said that according to Ms. Fillimore the Budget Committee could not require representatives from other boards to attend their meetings and they did not have any authority over members of other committees. Ms. Powell said that Ms. Fillimore had said that the Budget Committee could work with her more if they had further questions or if any
of their concerns became significant issues.
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Decker noted for the record that Mr. Koester, Mr. Duprey and Ms. Andersen were all excused absences from the meeting.
Ms. Bonser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00pm. Ms. Powell seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
