Board of Education Meeting Room
The regular meeting of the Board of Education of St. Mary’s County was held on Wednesday,
February 8, 2006, in the Board of Education Meeting Room, 23160 Moakley Street, Leonardtown. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Dr. Salvatore L. Raspa, chairman. Board members present for the meeting were:
.Dr. Salvatore L. Raspa, Chairman
.Mr. Gary Kessler, Vice Chairman
.Ms. Cathy Allen
.Ms. Mary Washington
.Ms. Brittany Thurston, Student Member
Mr. Kessler made a motion that the Board enter into executive session to discuss personnel, negotiations, and property acquisition issues (Article 24, Section 4-210(a)1,8,11). Ms. Allen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Raspa reconvened the regular meeting at 9:45 a.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Ms. Lynne Morgan, supervisor of fine arts, highlighted summer camp opportunities for students that are offered by St. Mary’s County Public Schools.
Ms. Allen made a motion to approve the agenda as presented with an addition to include the consolidated adult education and literacy program grant under the consent agenda for approval. Mr. Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Superintendent Report
Dr. Michael Martirano, superintendent of schools, announced that 47 Leonardtown High School students participated in the Prince William United Nations conference where they received the Secretary General Award for their outstanding research paper. He also noted that today is a Professional Development day and teachers are receiving high quality professional development. Dr. Martirano also announced that he will be bringing up the textbook topic at the March 8, 2006, Board meeting as an information item. Dr. Martirano highlighted the results of the MATHCOUNTS event this past weekend where our school system took a clean sweep as follows: Leonardtown Middle School (LMS) 1st place; Margaret Brent Middle School (MBMS) – 2nd place; and Esperanza Middle School (EMS) – 3rd place. Dr. Martirano commended all students who participated and Ms. Marian Steinbach, supervisor of mathematics, for her hard work in the coordination of this event. Dr. Martirano also announced results of the Science Fair held this past weekend at Great Mills High School (GMHS), where over 72 of our students won awards and 23 will move on to the regional competition.
Recognitions
Public Hearing
A public hearing was held to provide public input on policies for review as follows: “JLC” (Student Wellness), “GBC” (Employee Wellness), “GBK” (Tobacco Free School Environment), and “GCNA” (Administrative and Supervisory Evaluation System). Public input was received as follows:
Name Policy
Ms. Liat Mackey JLC
Ms. Dwan Tape JLC
Public comment was received as follows:
Name Subject
Reverend Meredith Wilkins-Arnold support of charter schools
Mr. James Tomasic textbook issues
Ms. Jan Emerson support of FY 2007 budget, joint letter on
pension funding
Ms. Becky Benton support of charter school
Ms. Nancy Warren support of charter school
Ms. Pat McKinney support of charter school
Dr. Christine Bergmark support of charter school
Ms. Allen made a motion that the following consent agenda items be approved:
.Regular and Executive Session minutes of January 25, 2006
.New Employment
.Grants
.Title I NCLB Act Grant
.Title I Carver School Improvement Grant
.GED Connections Grant
.Consolidated Adult Education and Literacy Program Grant
.Detention Center ESL Grant
.Pre AP/AP Baldrige Writing Grant
.AP Nexus Grant
.Primary Talent Development Grant
Mr. Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Chesapeake Public Charter Schools
Dr. Martirano acknowledged that representatives from the Chesapeake Public Charter School (CPCS) are in the audience along with school system staff who have been working on this topic. Dr. Martirano stated that Maryland law defines a “public charter school” as a “public school” that is nonsectarian, is chosen by parents for their children, and is open to all students on a space available basis. The purpose of a public charter school is to establish an alternative means within the existing public school system to provide an innovative learning opportunity and a creative educational approach to improve the education of students. As done previously at the
January 11, 2006, Board meeting presentation on charter schools, Dr. Martirano defined the timeline as follows: November 22, 2004 – CPCS submits application to St. Mary’s County Public Schools (SMCPS) to establish a public charter school; March 1, 2005 – CPCS submits final version of application; March 9, 2005 – CPCS application is denied by the Board of Education (BOE) of SMCPS. CPCS appeals SMCPS BOE decision to the Maryland State Board of Education (MSBE); June 28, 2005 – CPCS appeal of the decision to deny is heard by the MSBE; July 20, 2005 – MSBE reversed the LEA’s denial and remanded the matter for further consideration. It also directed the parties to identify an acceptable facility by
December 31, 2005. Failure to do so may constitute a justifiable basis to deny the application; Summer 2005 – The school system began updating BOE Public Charter School policy which includes language that directs the Superintendent to provide a detailed recommendation for approval or denial of a charter school application; September 3, 2005 - CPCS contacted the Division of Supporting Services to schedule a walk through of the Christ Episcopal Church hall as the proposed location for the CPCS; September 22, 2005 – A walk-through of Christ Episcopal Church was conducted for site compliance by SMCPS and CPCS; September 26, 2005 – SMCPS BOE adopts the new Public Charter School policy; October 10, 2005 – SMCPS meets with CPCS to discuss findings from walk-through and discuss next steps, including 19 items that needed to be addressed in order to determine whether the facility is acceptable as a public charter school; October 10-December 31, 2005 – Timeframe in which CPCS addressed the 19 items in preparation for the determination of the facility as being acceptable for a public charter school; October 24, 2005 – A letter was sent from SMCPS to CPCS confirming the next steps discussed
in the October 10, 2005 meeting; November 8-16, 2005 – Continuing emails and phone conversations between CPCS and SMCPS regarding facilities matters; November 18, 2005 – CPCS sends a letter to Dr. Root, President of MSBE, requesting clarification of the term “acceptable facility”; December 2, 2005 – SMCPS sends a letter to Dr. Root to clarify their expectations regarding an “acceptable facility”; December 12, 2005 – Dr. Root responds and concludes that there is no need for MSBE to clarify the term “acceptable facility”; December 22, 2005 – CPCS delivers facility documentation to the school system. CPCS did not address all 19 items in the report whereby the school system could not determine whether the facility was acceptable; January 5, 2006 – SMCPS calls CPCS to schedule a presentation to the Superintendent’s School Support Team (SSST) on January 10, 2006. In this conversation, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) reiterated that any and all remediation work must be identified and that the timeline and cost of work be included; January 10, 2006 – CPCS presents to the SSST to discuss issues of program, budget, and facility. At this meeting, discussion focused on the facility. It included questions regarding acceptability of site and the need for additional information to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the site. Questions were also raised regarding the church’s approval of the use of the church hall by CPCS; January 11, 2006 – Superintendent presents update of CPCS to the SMCPS BOE as an information item (CPCS shared in their December 31, 2005, submittal that the information needed to make a determination on the facility would be provided by January 30, 2006. The superintendent indicated to the BOE that he would hold off his decision regarding facility acceptability until February 8, 2006, to allow CPCS time to provide the additional information. The superintendent shared with the BOE that the 19 items were critical to opening the school (based on the health and safety of students); January 12, 2006 – The superintendent sent CPCS a letter allowing them until January 30, 2006, per their request, to provide information needed to determine whether the facility is acceptable. The letter indicated the critical need to understand this information so that all parties (CPCS, Christ Church, and SMCPS) would be able to understand the scope of the work, the timeline, and the cost. The superintendent also requested confirmation from the church that they were in concurrence with the lease for the CPCS to utilize the church hall as a public school; January 23, 2006 – The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) met with representatives from the CPCS to review the budget. Concerns were discussed. CPCS was going to go back and review their budget; January 26, 2006 – Superintendent and the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) met with CPCS to review the status of the application. The CPCS submitted a revised budget. The budget increased the number of students from 96 to 120. However, the budget remained in deficit. CPCS indicated that they would utilize fund raising at approximately $10,000 per month to support the budget; January 27, 2006 – Revised budget delivered to SMCPS; January 29, 2006 – CPCS submitted response to SMCPS letter of January 12, 2006. Dr. Martirano highlighted where we were on January 11, 2006, by noting that the following items needed to be addressed by January 30, 2006, in order to facilitate a favorable recommendation on behalf of the CPCS facility and its charter at the February 8, 2006, meeting of the SMCPS BOE: complete the lease agreement; present application, with special emphasis on the academic program, to the superintendent and SSST; review of the CPCS budget; define understandings regarding the negotiated agreement; and complete the status of the facility review items addressing the 19 points. Mr. Brad Clements, COO, stated that the school system has to ensure a high quality
environment for all students and that each county has their own policy on charter schools. Mr. Clements highlighted the projected timeline for charter school openings and the timeline for the 19 points that needed to be addressed by the CPCS, noting that 8 of the 19 items were critical in determining acceptability of the facility and that all 19 need to be done before opening the school. Mr. Clements again reiterated that this school must have the same quality of facilities as our other public schools. Dr. Martirano stated that based upon our assessment of the work to be done on the 19 points; it is his opinion that the CPCS will not be ready for an August 2006 opening. At this time, the identified facility is not acceptable. He has opened two schools and it takes an incredible amount of work for this to happen. He also noted that he is aware of the charter school process and will not allow a school to open unless it is a safe environment and it must be successful. Dr. Martirano made a recommendation that the Board approve the application for an opening of the CPCS no sooner than August, 2007, which allows all parties to move to the next level along the approval process continuum. He also defined next steps as follows: a charter agreement must be completed in 30 days as defined by the Maryland State Board of Education – a charter agreement delineates the responsibilities of all parties involved in the implementation and ongoing monitoring of a public charter school; within 30 days, the two groups (SMCPS and CPCS) will work collaboratively to establish the charter agreement; the charter agreement will come back to the Board at the March 8, 2006, Board meeting for action. This 30 day timeline is set by the State, not us. Items that would need to be included in a charter agreement (although not inclusive) are: Executive Summary; Educational Program and Services (specific plans and strategies for developing and delivering educational programs and ways to address the achievement gap); Special Programs; Student Outcomes (with clear measures of subgroup achievement that indicates progress in eliminating the achievement gap), Student Admission, Enrollment, and Withdrawal Procedures (to address established expectations for student diversity) (A minimum of 120 students to address financial viability); Staffing Plan consistent with SMCPS policy, all relevant negotiated agreements, and state law; Transportation Plan; Management Plan; Facilities Plan - A letter from Christ Church supporting the lease agreement (a component of the lease would enforce that concurrent use of the facility by the church and school would not be acceptable), specifics (cost, location, health and safety compliance, available space and its use, and terms and conditions of the lease); Financial Plan (with specifics about fund raising timeline), Community Support and Assurances – signed by all applicants. Dr. Martirano stated that concurrent use is not acceptable at this site. Dr. Martirano highlighted the review, renewal, and revocation of a charter and reiterated that by taking action today, it allows all parties to move forward in the process, along a continuum, to the next phase. It is, however, no guarantee, that the charter school will open. Ms. Brittany Thurston, student Board member, noted that she has done research on charter school data and wants to make sure that the achievement gap issue is addressed and is in favor of looking at the CPCS opening in 2007. Mr. Kessler noted that he is appreciative of the thoroughness that has gone into this process of opening a new school and commended the CPCS for their perseverance. Mr. Kessler also noted the importance of continuing the collaboration of both groups and moving forward in the process. Mr. Kessler questioned whether a charter could be written in thirty days. Dr. Martirano and Mr. Ed O’Meally, staff attorney, stated that the thirty days is set by the state, and is non negotiable. Ms. Allen commended Dr. Martirano and staff for their hard work on this
process. Ms. Allen inquired about the building use, proposed relocatable, fundraising, concurrent use of the building, and tuition. Ms. Allen noted her concern and disappointment
with a comment made in the newspaper recently that CPCS had to educate the school system on this process commenting that it was her belief that the two parties were learning together. She noted that she currently serves on a charter school commission at the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) and has spent the last year and a half researching this topic. Ms. Allen also noted that she is uncomfortable with this recommendation, and that the funding issue is huge. Ms. Allen noted her appreciation that the school system is continuing to work collaboratively with the CPCS, but noted that this does not mean that if this recommendation goes forward, that the school opens. It is taking the next steps toward that process, as stated by one of the charter school members. Ms. Washington noted that giving 30 days to develop a charter is highly ambitious and felt that this can be done with the CPCS and SMCPS working together. Ms. Washington also noted that this recommendation gives an opportunity for the CPCS to work to resolve and satisfy areas of concern with facility, safety, financial, and program and that she supports this recommendation because it shows a good faith effort on behalf of the school system to have a successful charter school. Ms. Washington also noted that she remains open minded to all citizen concerns regarding a public charter school. Dr. Raspa noted that after months of collaboration there are still many questions regarding the lease, concurrent use, fire marshal, electricity and the well, and there should have been enough time to address some of these issues. Dr. Raspa stated that he understands the release of grant funds and the considerable amount of funding necessary to open a school. Dr. Raspa asked Dr. Martirano if it was feasible that a charter in this case, can be satisfactorily written by both groups in thirty days. Dr. Martirano stated that yes, it is feasible, but satisfactorily, is yet to be determined, because the Board has not accepted the recommendation and there has not been dialogue with the CPCS on a charter. Dr. Martirano noted that staff will be working with our legal representatives and it will be a very quick and solid job of back mapping the timeline to meet the thirty day deadline. Dr. Raspa noted that it will take a considerable amount of time to do this if the Board moves forward with this recommendation. Dr. Martirano stated that he does not make quick decisions and the school system has no one person designated to work on charter school issues and it will take an incredible amount of staff time on creating a charter. Dr. Martirano also reiterated that he cannot compromise the standards for our students and this next step is so important to the success of the charter school. He also noted that there is solid leadership running the school system. Ms. Allen suggested that when other charter groups come forward that we hand out the charter agreement with the charter application as one more rubric as we proceed through the charter school process. Ms. Allen made a motion that the Board of Education approve the Charter School application submitted by the Chesapeake Public Charter School Alliance, Ltd., subject to the negotiation of an acceptable charter school agreement within thirty (30) days and for the opening of the CPCS to occur no sooner than August, 2007. Mr. Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Thurston asked that the record show that the student member is in favor of this motion.
2006-2007 and 2007-2008 School System Calendars
Ms. Linda Dudderar, chief academic officer, presented the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school system calendars for final review and approval. Ms. Dudderar noted that the proposed calendars
were presented for review at the January 25, 2006, Board meeting. Ms. Dudderar noted staff has taken the feedback that has been provided and it was very minimal. Dr. Martirano noted that he fully supports the proposed calendars and that it is a two year cycle that will improve attendance, provide a full spring break, and focus on instruction and he is very pleased with the overall product. Ms. Dudderar shared sample student handbooks that incorporate the calendar in one document. We will do the same to give parents a rich set of information in one publication. Ms. Allen inquired about exploring the possibility of this new model placed on the website so parents can mesh it to fit their individual needs. Dr. Martirano noted that he will ask Ms. Dudderar to follow up with our technology department on this recommendation. Dr. Martirano also noted that there will be no additional cost to mesh the handbook and calendar into one document. Board members commended the committee for their work on developing the two year calendars. Ms. Washington made a motion to approve the school calendars for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Mr. Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Budget Transfer for Relocatables
Mr. Clements noted that as a result of the fire at the relocatable complex at the Great Mills Annex, a state four classroom unit was destroyed. This unit was included in our state capital improvements program request for relocation to the Leonardtown Elementary School Annex to house students during construction of the addition/renovation. Under a three year initiative, the state school construction program will participate in the purchase of locally owned relocatable classrooms. The school system received approval by the Public School Construction Program to purchase two double classroom units. In order for these units to be utilized for the 2006-2007 school year, the new units will need to be bid and purchased this spring. Funding for this project is being requested locally as part of the FY 2007 capital plan, but will not be available in time to meet the project deadline for school opening. Staff is recommending that funds from the planning of the addition/renovation, which is fully funded, be utilized to fund the purchase of these units in order to ensure the timeline is maintained. The funds will be replaced in the Leonardtown Elementary School project upon approval of the relocatable funding in July 2006. Ms. Allen made a motion to approve a budget transfer request in the amount of $235,000 from the Leonardtown Elementary School Addition/Renovation project for the purchase of two double classroom relocatables as submitted by staff. Mr. Kessler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
FY 2007 Budget Approval
Mr. Dan Carney, chief financial officer, presented the FY 2007 proposed budget for approval. Mr. Carney noted that the Board of Education must review and approve the Superintendent’s Proposed Budget for FY 2007. Once approved, it becomes the Board of Education’s Proposed
FY 2007 budget and is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. If approved, this budget will, among other things: make our salaries more competitive with
surrounding counties, maintain Board class size goals; address rising fuel, energy, and health care costs; continue our textbook initiative; enhance our technology life-cycle replacement
initiative; increase the number of students participating in Advanced Placement courses; start an initiative to assist students who will have to pass the Maryland High School Assessment tests to
graduate (current freshman); add two new programs at the Dr. James A. Forrest Career and Technology Center; complete our full-day kindergarten initiative; and convert two more Health Department nurses to Board employees. Mr. Carney noted that the school system is presently in discussion with the Board of County Commissioners to fund the additional three million deficit in this proposed budget and that negotiations have been suspended with the labor unions at this time awaiting the outcome of these discussions. Board members commended Dr. Martirano and staff for the hard work that goes into developing the budget and acknowledged that this budget is a bare bones budget. Dr. Martirano noted that all comments are well taken and this budget has been pared down through a collaborative effort of staff. Dr. Martirano noted that he is optimistic and concurred that we need to take a look at the funding issue with the Bridge to Excellence. Dr. Martirano also thanked the Education Association of St. Mary’s County (EASMC) and Collective Employees’ Association of St. Mary’s County (CEASMC) for allowing him to explain in detail to their membership the constraints of this budget. Ms. Allen made a motion to approve the proposed budget, which will then be forwarded to the county. Ms. Washington seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Dr. Raspa noted that there are additional funds in this budget for textbooks and noted that the school system has spent over 5 million in textbooks over the last ten years. Dr. Martirano reiterated that he plans to present an information item to the Board on the textbook issue at the March 8, 2006, Board meeting and this information needs to be communicated more effectively to the public.
FY 2006 January Financial Report
Mr. Carney presented the FY 2006 financial results as of January 27, 2006. Mr. Carney noted that the revenue picture has not changed, but there is a watch on the expenditure side for federal impact aid, contracted services, and transportation, and he will be prepared to bring a categorical transfer forward to address some of these overages.
.Ms. Washington noted her attendance at the following events: Soup Cook Off at the Dr. James A. Forrest Career and Technology Center; Reading to students at Ridge, Park Hall, George Washington Carver, Lexington Park, Piney Point, Leonardtown, Benjamin Banneker, and Dynard Elementary Schools; GMHS Transition Fair; and the Science Fair where Dr. and Ms. Raspa gave a scholarship in memory of their son.
.Ms. Allen noted that she too attended the Science Fair and congratulated student Nick Bruno for his award winning project.
.Ms. Thurston thanked Dr. Martirano for attending the Superintendent’s Student Advisory Council where constructive dialogue was received and invited him to future SMASC meetings.
.Dr. Raspa noted his attendance at the Science Fair and that he and his family have been awarding the scholarship in memory of his son, Joe, for the past seventeen years. Dr. Raspa
asked for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Jerry Lymas, husband of Dr. Linda Lymas, whose funeral is today.
Future Board Meetings
The following future meetings will be held:
.Multi-Agency Breakfast Meeting, Tuesday, February 14, 2006, 8:00 a.m., Leonardtown Library Meeting Room, Leonardtown.
.Regular Board Meeting, Wednesday, March 8, 2006, 9:00 a.m., Board Meeting Room, Leonardtown.
.Joint Meeting with the College of Southern Maryland (CSM) Board of Trustees, Thursday, March 30, 2006, 1:00-3:00 p.m., CSM Leonardtown Campus, Leonardtown.
Adjournment
Dr. Raspa adjourned the regular meeting at 1:47 p.m.
Dr. Salvatore L. Raspa
Chairman
Dr. Michel J. Martirano
Secretary-Treasurer