If you missed the meeting with the school committee, you can read about the budget here:
Newton School Committee
Local School Committees derive their authority from the Constitution of Massachusetts, from statutes, and from the regulations of the State Board of Education. The Newton School Committee consists of nine voting members: one person is elected (citywide) from each of Newton’s eight wards, and the Mayor serves as an ex-officio member. School Committee members are elected every two years citywide with a term limit of 4 consecutive terms.
“The School Committee in each city and town and each regional school district shall have the power to select and to terminate the Superintendent; shall review and approve budgets for public education in the district, and shall establish educational goals and policies for the schools in the district, consistent with the requirements of law and state-wide goals and standards established by the Board of Education.” Education Reform Act of 1993, Ch. 71. S. 37
School Committee Website: http://www3.newton.k12.ma.us/schoolcommittee/
Email messages sent to schoolcommittee@newton.k12.ma.us will be forwarded to the entire School Committee. Email sent to individual email addresses will not be automatically forwarded to other members. Telephone messages can be taken at 617-559-6110.
Ward Name Email Telephone
Ward 1 Geoff Epstein geoff_epstein@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-332-1626
Ward 2 Jonathan Yeo jonathan_yeo@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-630-8180
Ward 3 Angela Pitter-Wright angela_pitter@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-612-5576
Ward 4 Diana Fisher Gomberg diana_gomberg@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-243-9424
Ward 5 Steven Siegel steven_siegel@newton.k12.ma.us (C) 617-901-4959
Ward 6 Claire Sokoloff
Chair claire_sokoloff@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-527-2219
Ward 7 Matt Hills
Vice-Chair matt_hills@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-630-9862
Ward 8 Margie Ross Decter margie_rossdecter@newton.k12.ma.us (H) 617-965-3003
Mayor Setti Warren swarren@newtonma.gov 617-796-1100
Enrollment Growth Trends–+1,428 students (FY04-FY17)
846 more students (8% growth) FY04 to FY12
147 more students from FY11-FY12
265 ELL (+42%), 232 SpEd (+13%)
12,144 students projected in FY13
192 more students than in FY12
582 more students projected from FY13 to FY17
Expected cumulative growth (FY04-FY17): +1,428 students (+13%)
FY 12 Budget Recap–4 million dollar gap
Cut nearly 30 teachers
Cut programs at all levels (e.g., elementary art, music, middle school drama)
Added/increased $1 million worth of student fees.
Expanded efforts to innovate and cut costs while improving programs (e.g., co-taught classrooms, food service, out of district tuition income)
FY 13 Budget Recap–$0 gap
We settled contracts that kept health and compensation at 2.5% growth.
Governor’s proposal for increased state aid.
Sustained efficiencies (e.g., food services, utilities).
Schools prioritized in city’s budget.
TOTAL Budget $178,781,245, an increase of $7M over FY12. The breakdown reflects an increase to retain the baseline program from FY11 including mandated services (2.6%), and one-time adjustments due to enrollment (1%) and loss of federal funds (.5%):
Total FY13 Budget Increase +4.1% $7.0M
Maintenance of Effort +2.6% $4.4M
Enrollment Increase +1.0% $1.7M (+192 students)
Replace Ed Jobs Federal Funds +0.5% $0.9M
Elementary School Highlights
6 additional teachers added for enrollment
Slight reduction in class size and increased targeted and focused small group instruction during literacy and math K-2
Restoration of 4th grade chorus
Middle School Highlights
Nearly 5 additional teachers added for enrollment
Additional reading support to provide regular education intervention
High School Highlights
5 1/2 additional teachers to address enrollment increase
Student Services Highlights
Expansion of elementary co-taught classrooms
Additional mental health staff –full time coverage in all elementary schools
Development of citywide middle school programs for students with social/emotional
disabilities and students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
Enrollment related increases: staffing and expenses
English Language Learning Highlights
Additional teaching staff (1.0 FTE) to accommodate enrollment growth
Additional aide support (1.0 FTE) to serve beginning English learners
Increased staffing (.55 FTE) to support students at risk of not passing MCAS
(funded by tuition revenue)
Supporting Technology
Continued strong support from PTOs and Newton Schools Foundation (Thank you!)
New partnership with Boston College
Close partnership with Newton Schools Foundation
Use of one-time health holiday funds: Technology for the middle schools
Update the South Language Lab
Improve network infrastructure to support access at all levels
School Buildings/Infrastructure
Short term space expansion includes 4 new modular classrooms installed this year at Burr, Zervas, and Horace-Mann and final plans for an additional 6 classrooms at Day
We have entered the state school building funding program to renovate or replace Angier school and we are planning renovate Carr school to use as swing space for Angier and future school projects.
School building needs are now integrated with the city’s 5 year Capital Improvement Plan. Our long range facilities plan was updated in the Fall. We are currently discussing strategies and prospective school expansion projects to address near term space needs due to enrollment increases.
Revenue Gaps: Implications for the Future
Increased Enrollment: Based on enrollment projections of 582 students by FY17, an additional $5.2m in operating expenses will be needed to cover enrollment increases alone.
Ensuring Innovation in Teaching: The funding gap for digital education as requested in the NPS strategic plan is estimated at $3million. Newton Schools Foundation and the PTOs are critical partners in this effort.
Fixing school buildings: In addition to Angier, our schools are deteriorating with many at or beyond capacity. Additional revenue will be needed to expand and improve our failing school buildings and to add needed classroom space for our growing population.
FAQS
Frequently Asked Questions for School Committee—Spring 2012
Proposition 2 ½ gives us a tool to increase our budget each year. Why doesn’t the NPS create a sustainable budget and live within its means?
NPS has done a great deal to manage costs over the last few years, including negotiating labor contracts that grow by no more than 2 ½ % a year, outsourcing the lunch program, and developing special education programs to meet student needs in cost-effective ways.
At the same time, enrollment has been growing by over 100 students a year on a recurring basis over the last eight years (+846 students). The same rate of growth is projected for the next five years, with an additional 192 students expected next year.
Because of the additional students, more teachers are needed just to keep class sizes at current levels. Next year, $1.7 million (approximately 1% growth on a $178 million budget) is needed for these enrollment related positions.
If enrollment increases continue, NPS needs a 3.5% revenue increase simply to fund the current program.
Do we need an override?
The Mayor is the only person who can officially docket an override proposition and the Board of Aldermen must approve it before it goes on the ballot. Mayor Warren has made it clear that we need additional revenues to build Angier as well as to make progress on other long range facilities projects. Newton’s bonding capacity is not sufficient to fully address these projects. Therefore additional revenue is needed through development, other sources such as state aid, and/or an override (operating or debt exclusion). It is unlikely that we can renovate/rebuild our aging buildings without an override. The Mayor will put forth a funding proposal in the late fall once the Long-Range Facilities and Capital Improvement Plans are further developed.
In terms of an operating override, the same principles apply in that additional revenue is needed if we are going to experience continued enrollment growth. While our contracts are growing at the same rate as our revenues (2.5%), enrollment projections suggest that an additional 1-2% revenue growth is need to fund the enrollment increases, restore program cuts and maintain or improve class sizes and breadth of program.
The reason we didn’t feel more pain in this year’s budget is because of $2.7 million additional in Chapter 70 money that the Governor earmarked for education and the Mayor passed along to the school budget. This covered our enrollment increase. However, this is an unusual move and we cannot count on it for next year(s).
What happens if class sizes get too large over the summer? What is the magic number for adding another teacher?
We have 2 reserve teachers at elementary and 1 for secondary (middle and high) to be deployed based on unexpected enrollment increases.
To add another teacher, there needs to be a classroom available. If there is one, then other factors the come into play are: the grade (K-2 is prioritized), the number of years in a large class (multiple years may trigger a teacher), and if other models can be used (e.g. .5 teachers for core academics).
How come we’re not doing FDK?
With very limited additional resources for next year, the School Department decided to use funds to address a literacy achievement gap in the lower grades. They considered a FDK pilot which would have helped students at one school but for the same price the resources are being targeted at our youngest children in need (K-2) across all the elementary schools.
As a clarification, Newton has a hybrid kindergarten model that includes children staying for two full days and two half days. During the afternoons of the full days only half the children are in attendance allowing for much more individualized attention.
Like Wellesley, our hybrid model is considered FDK by the state and we have received FDK grants for 12 years and continue to do so. Other comparable communities with FDK have full time aides in the classroom. This would cost Newton over $ 1 million.
Why don’t have more digital education in the Newton Public Schools? Why can’t students bring their own devices to school?
Digital education/technology is expensive and we don’t have a recurring funding source that is sufficient to address our needs.
We will need approximately $2.3 million to bring all classrooms up to the district standard (projection, document camera, and Audio/media system) with sufficient access to computer/tablet technology when it is needed for instructional activities. We have approximately $300,000 available per year in the operating budget for hardware of this kind. The current operating budget will require an additional $1.4 million a year to maintain and support this investment.
The current infrastructure at the secondary schools does not support enough wireless clients to officially allow students to BYOD (Bring Their/Your Own Device) to school. We have plans to expand the current infrastructure in all the middle and high schools to support two devices for every human in the building. Estimates are in the range of $1 million for infrastructure to equip buildings appropriately to support the number of devices and network capacity needed by our schools. We have E-rate funds and operating budget available to cover approximately $175,000 per year.
The School Dept. is working in partnership with the NSF, PTO’s, Boston College and private industry aside from expenditure in the city and school budget. In addition, the technology department has formulated a five-year CIP plan to target large portions of the needed infrastructure.
