Committee Fails to Reach 80% 1-1 Laptop initiative Participation Goal - Extends Deadline

Landman resignation details not discussed

by Muriel Kramer

June 8, 2012 — The public had a lot to say last night, but the School Committee remained mum on the subject and circumstances of Superintendent Jonathan Landman’s abrupt resignation after serving only one year of his current three year contract. Resident Gail Welsh was the first to speak attesting to the great concern in the community about Dr. Landman’s decision to leave and additionally about the severance pay he will receive. Landman will receive up to seven month’s pay and health insurance benefits; the salary compensation alone could total up to $105,000. Welsh asserted, “The explanations that have been provided don’t satisfy the taxpayer.”

Resident Joe Markey was the next to speak to the issue. “The resignation of Dr. Landman came a s a surprise to me and many in the community.” He too asked for more detail from the School Committee. Commenting on assertions that Dr. Landman did not appear to be a good fit with the expectations and approach of the School Committee or the District, Markey pointed out that either the criteria we set were not right or the Superintendent did not meet expectations. “We need to know in a public forum what it is that went wrong.” Markey continued suggesting either that the public wasn’t privy to conversations that led up to this decision and in that case there was likely some violation of public meeting law, or alternatively he posed that some subset of the School Committee had held discussions on this and in so doing done a disservice to other members of the committee. “From what we can see, Dr. Landman was a great choice.” Markey concluded by saying that performance reviews are to be done in public. “My concern is that an assessment was done outside that forum. Open Meeting law is not set up for the convenience of the School Committee but for the protection of the public.”

Resident Ed Harrow spoke next, and he was direct and to the point. “I support Dr. Landman 100%, and I was extremely disappointed to read that he had resigned.” He also echoed Markey’s comments and concluded with a reference to Mark Twain’s famous quote “In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." Twain also famously said, “...when you are in politics you are in a wasp's nest with a short shirt-tail.”

The School Committee made no comment to these or any issues accepting Dr. Landman’s resignation unanimously and without discussion.

Human Resource Director for the Schools Kim Pulnik spoke next to the process going forward. She recommended seeking an interim superintendent for the next year from Aug 12 to Jun 13 suggesting that often times those candidates are retired superintendents that are limited by law to how many hours they can work and how much pay they can earn while receiving retirement benefits from the State of Massachusetts. Pulnik has set a schedule shooting for July 9^th to begin interviewing candidates. In the meantime, she spoke to the need to appoint an acting superintendent suggesting perhaps using a principal from one of the schools.

Instead, School Committee Member Rebecca Robak (photo, left) made the motion to appoint new Assistant Superintendent Mary Ann DeMello to the position; the motion was seconded by new School Committee Member John Graziano. A second perfunctory vote was held—no discussion and unanimous.

School Committee Member Scott Aghababian spoke to the difficult situation ahead calling on administrators and staff to help sustain the school system. “I challenge our administrators to understand and step up here to help us.”

1:1 Laptop Initiative

READ MORE...

Resident Dana Hall spoke to the laptop initiative for next year’s incoming ninth graders. “I actually think it’s a great idea, but the current plan is flawed.” First there were only 3 options to participate and no 4^th option to not participate. “To be fair an option for a no should have been included.” He added concerns about expense because of a manufacturer with a closed architecture and fairly expensive items. With students being able to bring in their own PC’s, teachers will spend a great deal of time trying to make things work in the classroom as best they can. Further there has been no discussion of what is to happen in future years. Citing the need for a plan, Hall said, “I see a starting point, a lofty goal and no plan.”

Resident Amy Ritterbusch participated in the Citizen’s Technology group this spring and supports the program. Citing flexibility, online textbooks to lighten the load in backpacks and tools to flag plagiarism as benefits; she also held that for shy children like her own, “teachers say it’s a benefit for shy kids that participate in discussions more easily online.”

High School Principal Alyson Geary and School Technology Director Kathy Dooley presented the results of the parent sign ups; they currently have 213 students out of 283 current students (75%) requesting to lease or bringing their own devices for next year. Additionally there are 7 new students coming into the district that have not been contacted on the initiative. Acknowledging that they have not reached the 80% threshold necessary to proceed with the initiative, the School Committee agreed by consensus to give the proponents another week to get the rest of the responses and perhaps contact the parents of the students that will be new to the district next year following Dr. Landman’s suggestion to do so. Landman said, “I recommend the School Committee give the High School the benefit of next week to run down the responses that are still outstanding.”

Childcare Waiver

Two residents spoke up in opposition to the waiver form parents of children needing transportation on the bus to daycare are being asked to sign. Below is the link to the waiver form.

http://hopkinton.schoolwires.net/cms/lib4/MA01001785/Centricity/Shared/Transportation/WaiverDaycare.pdf

Dr. Susan Gilson, a Superintendent of Schools in Massachusetts as well as parent, made the point that parents of children needing transportation to after school daycare are being asked to agree to a lower standard of safety than their counterparts on the same bus. “This form is concerning because it asks Hopkinton parents who are dependent on childcare to acknowledge and accept a lower safety standards for their child. All children should have the same right of access to equitable safety standards.” Specific statements of concern include parents being asked to agree that the schools can at any time refuse to transport the child along the alternate bus route instead taking them home where there may or may not be anyone ready to receive them, to agree that it is the child’s responsibility to board the correct bus, and that parents accept all risk and responsibility for injury or damage. “Additionally alarming was the timeline of communication about the policy change. Notice was received in May for a June 1 submission.” Gilson continued, “How can a parent be asked by a school district to relinquish the safety of their child if their child is being cared for before/after school in a residential neighborhood home? As a community, we should be looking out for the safety of all our children to the best extent possible.”

Resident Virginia Gutierrez also spoke up with similar concerns. “My concerns regarding the waiver is that it seems to set a double standard regarding the safety of children who are being transported on the Hopkinton school buses. Parents whose children get on and off the bus at what the waiver is calling ‘Regular Residential-Area Bus Stops’ are not being required to waive their rights and their child’s rights to safe transportation. Parents whose children get on and off the bus at what the waiver is calling ‘Alternative Bus Stops’ are being asked to waive their rights and their child’s rights to safe transportation.” She continues that this practice seems to discriminate against working parents.

Criteria Working Group (CWG)

The CWG for the elementary school building project presented their findings to the School Committee. The group presented a list of 11 criteria that were ranked by the members who set safety as top priorities and ranked cost issues lower; educational space needs were also typically set as high priorities. They also included in the report additional criteria that were not ranked but were identified for consideration; these included following the MSBA guidelines for grant approval as much as possible and that the facility should include both early childhood and elementary students. Additionally, if renovation is the approach chosen, that renovation should in no way impact the educational practices or daily activities at the school.

School Committee Member Scott Aghababian asked, “I know you all looked at community surveys; can you explain how that was used in the process.” Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Ann DeMello who chaired the group responded that all members received packets with all of the community input included and that it was individual member’s responsibility to incorporate that information into the process.

For her part, CWG member Kim Brennan felt that it wasn’t part of the process. “Quite honestly I felt that’s where the group fell short.” She asserted in her comments that at no time was there substantial discussion with the committee regarding the substantial community input that has been gathered over time. “Certainly, this was a worthwhile exercise, but for me there was certainly a lot missing.”

CWG member Trina Macchi agreed in part with Brennan’s concerns. “I was a little disheartened and felt in the end we were rushed. I feel it’s a little unfinished.”

Others on the committee in response strongly disagreed. CWG member Tara Sanda spoke. “I’m irate.” She continued, “ I support each and every criteria, and I think it’s a complete document.”