Framingham Public Schools - Wicked Localmedia.wickedlocal.com/pdf/FRAtaskforce.pdf · Cheryl Caira...

Framingham Public Schools Jonathan Maynard Building

14 Vernon Street Framingham, Massachusetts 01701-7433

Telephone: 508-626-9117 Fax: 508-626-9119 TTY: 508-626-9126

Eugene F. Thayer, Superintendent of Schools February 9, 2009 Dear Parents, Faculty, Students and Community Members,

The District-wide Planning and Review Task Force, comprised of faculty and community volunteers, presented their final report to me on November 25, 2008. They began their work in February 2008 and have provided an extensive review and analysis of many of the issues, which are facing our school district.

Since the Task Force began their work and indeed since they presented this report

to me in November the Massachusetts economy has been experiencing a number of dramatic and potentially devastating challenges. As a school district we will be faced with making decisions about the future of our school district, which were perhaps unthinkable 12 months ago. Regardless of the challenges we face, our goal remains the same, to provide a quality education for every student in Framingham.

I, along with the Framingham School Committee, view this report as a data rich, reference document, which will help guide us as we move forward in our decision-making. While there are many options presented in the report, any final decisions will have to be made in the context of the fiscal environment we are facing.

I thank the Task Force for their commitment and dedication in putting this report together and welcome your comments and suggestions. Sincerely yours,

Eugene F. Thayer Superintendent of Schools EFT/nsf

Dr. Eugene Thayer, Superintendent Framingham Public Schools Framingham, Massachusetts Dear Dr. Thayer, Enclosed please find the report of the District Planning and Review Task Force. This report is the culmination of many months of work by a very dedicated committee. Task Force members heard presentations from district administrators, developed and implemented a parents survey, analyzed enormous amounts of data and then tackled the very real issues of a complicated, diverse district. We hope that you will take the time to read this document and we look forward to the opportunity to meet with you to answer any questions you may have. The Task Force comprised a diverse group of people who contributed in varying ways. The people listed below are pleased to have been part of the process and acknowledge their contribution to the final report.

Jennifer Bowman Jennifer Levitan Kathy Anbinder Kathy O’Leary Kristin Romine Luke Fontano Margie Menachem Mary Ann DiGiovanni Monique Brown Nicole Price Pamela Laquidara Pam Kaufmann Rick Gallagher Sarah Guernsey Sui Chin Viviana Vilches-Castrillo Jane Eyler Jim Stockless Mary Beth Duggan

Pam Hulme - Chair Ann Marie Graff Anne Mola Anne Rubenstein Betsey McKeon Beverly Hugo Carol Phalen Carolyn Burke Cheryl Caira Christine Tosti Cristina Sandza-Donovan David Morales Esta Montano Jane Crosby Jannine Ricchiazzi Anna Carollo Cross Nancy Rogerson Sheri Zalkin Audrey Hall Bill Bowman Wendy Flaherty

1

INTRODUCTION

In February of 2008, Dr. Eugene Thayer- Interim Superintendent of the Framingham Public Schools, convened a District Planning and Review Task Force, comprised of parents, teachers, school administration, and members of the community. The goal of this committee was to evaluate the extent to which the District’s current student assignment process was achieving the district goals of providing the best possible education to the children of our town, within the constraints of Federal, State and local funding and laws. He encouraged the group to be creative and broad in their thinking and to explore traditional and non-traditional options for building use, alternative student assignment plans and program placement. The overall process of the Task Force was to establish a large membership, ensuring representation from many constituencies, and to meet in both large group and small subgroups. In addition to these meetings, the Task Force also collected further input by conducting two surveys; one targeted for the Principals of each Framingham school, and a second for parents within the Framingham community.

Overall, the education of the Town of Framingham’s children is considered excellent by the following measures:

• Framingham Public School students are regularly honored for their academic, athletic and extracurricular activities.

• Framingham High School students attend a wide variety of highly selective colleges and universities.

• Framingham teachers and administrators are leaders in their fields and are recognized locally, nationally and even internationally.

• More than 74% of the families who responded to the October 2008 School Choice Survey rated the education provided by the schools as “Excellent” or “Good”.

The 8,370 students in Framingham represent an incredibly rich and diverse population, with a variety of needs. Our students come from a wide range of socio-economic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds. They mirror the global community more than any other Metrowest community. Our students and our school system are something the Town of Framingham can be proud of and should claim as a visible symbol of the community’s on-going commitment to quality education. The following report provides an extensive review and analysis of the issues that have been identified by families, staff, school administrators and community members. Our hope is that it will be used as a tool for future planning and discussion.

2

Executive Summary Task Force members formed three overarching subcommittees: Student Assignment, Transportation and Communication. Each subcommittee prepared a summary report. Committee members approached their charge positively and viewed it as an opportunity to advance the goals of the district and support an excellent school system. Task Force and subcommittee members accessed a variety of sources to inform their discussions. These sources included: a town wide School Choice Survey of families that have participated in the School Choice program, relevant enrollment, assignment, program and building capacity data as well as discussions with Principals, central administration and program directors. The Task Force identified Criteria to be used as guidelines for evaluating each scenario:

• Strong educational value • Stability for families and students • Fiscally responsible • Impact on the community • Efficiency of Transportation • Flexibility and Longevity of the plan • Maximum use of building capacity • Balance of district and individual goals and needs • Compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws and mandates • Socio-economic, racial, linguistic, and cultural diversity

The Task Force identified the following Student Assignment scenarios for consideration:

• “Neighborhood” Schools • School Choice • Placing Programs First • Middle School Enrollment, Feeder Patterns, & Structure • Restructuring Options

A summary of Task Force findings follows:

1. The Task Force analyzed the School Choice program in response to the perception in Town (as noted in public discussions at Town Meetings), that the program has cost the Town significant amounts of money, especially in busing, and should be eliminated, resulting in a return to “neighborhood” schools. Both the School Choice program and the possibility of returning to a “neighborhood” model were analyzed. Enrollment data, cost efficiencies and additional staffing implications do not support returning to “neighborhood schools”. The differences between the number of students in a “neighborhood”, the location of our schools and the number of students requiring specialized programs cannot be accommodated under a “neighborhood” model. The Task Force has however suggested some modifications to the School Choice program. The issue has been addressed in full in the School Choice section of this document.

3

2. The Task Force analyzed and considered the placement of specialized programs such as

Special Education and English Language Learner programs and their impact on schools. Related transportation, feeder school and other issues were also considered. A programmatic review of the Special Education and Bilingual, Sheltered and ESL program was out of the scope of the Task Force’s expertise and mandate. We did not look specifically at the programs themselves for efficiencies, consolidations or other opportunities. The Task Force assumed that if a more extensive review is required of either program, the School Committee and the Superintendent will facilitate that process. The Task Force did recommend that, where possible, cohesive and complete special program strands be developed in schools to maximize educational value, cost efficiencies and staff training opportunities while minimizing transitions for students and families.

3. The Task Force reviewed the current Middle School student assignment process and related concerns. The issues are complex and multi-layered. The closing of Juniper Hill coupled with a 5-year delay in addressing the loss of a “three feeder” system has created an untenable situation, particularly at Fuller Middle School. There are no simple or easy solutions. Disparities in enrollment numbers between the three middle schools must be addressed. The Task Force reviewed 12 different options for addressing this issue. Each option has a multitude of positives and negatives. Fixing a problem in one school often creates an associated problem in another. There was agreement that it is important for each middle school to have a diverse mix of students, programs and overall enrollment numbers that maximize building capacity so that everyone benefits from the education being provided. There are only two options for assigning middle school students. The first option is continuing or revising the current feeder school model. The second is assigning students by street address. Both options have been used in Framingham at various times. The Task Force did not reach a conclusion on any single solution but recommends strongly that the administration review the data provided and take immediate steps to identify a course of action and implement a plan for the 2009-2010 school year.

4. Building capacities are at a critical juncture. Based on current enrollment, the number of students in grades K, 1 & 2 is projected to be 100 to 200 larger than the number of students currently in grades 10, 11 & 12. All changes in the district need to assume building capacities will be maximized over the next 5+ years. This does not include any projections of new housing developments or other Town population growths. Future on-site program development in the areas of Full Day Kindergarten, Early Childhood, Pre-school and K-8 Special Education programs will be impossible without additional space in the district. The district’s inability to develop new programs “in-house” will result in a significant increase in costs associated with “out of district” special education placements. The Task Force recommends that the use of current buildings be reviewed with a focus on creating room for expansion over the next five years.

4

5. Modifications to the Transportation system have already been implemented for the 2008-

2009 school year. Reducing 6 buses by combining the routes of schools located near each other (Stapleton and Potter, Hemenway and Dunning, McAuliffe Charter and Fuller, FHS and Marion and St. Bridget’s and St. Tarcissius) has resulted in a savings of $250,000. Another result is that some students now ride the bus for up to 40 or 50 minutes. The need to transport students to 22 schools (private and public) in a community that covers 26 square miles will never be entirely eliminated. The Task Force did not undertake an extensive analysis of individual bus routes since that is a duplication of the efforts currently underway. The Task Force did however do a careful analysis of costs and additional suggestions have been outlined in detail in the Transportation Section of this document.

6. The Framingham Public Schools and the Town of Framingham encompass a wide

diversity of students and residents. In the past the school district’s focus has been on trying to achieve racial balance in our schools. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the approaches that can be used by school districts to achieve diverse student populations gives Framingham an opportunity to expand its definition of “balance”. We recommend that the School District include Socio-Economic Diversity in each school building as a Priority Goal and that School Committee policy JECC be revised to reflect this expanded definition.

7. Communication with key constituents is critical in a school district as diverse and

complex as Framingham. The Task Force recommends that the findings of the Communications and Outreach group be woven into any planning initiatives the district embarks upon.

8. The mission of the Framingham Public Schools is to provide a high quality education for

every student living in our community. The Task Force acknowledges that the reality of the financial environment globally, federally and locally may significantly impact the amount of financial support available for education. Thus, while many recommendations requiring additional Town funds, have been noted, several are not recommended at this time. Opportunities for restructuring the district that might result in cost efficiencies or improved educational outcomes have been noted.

Our educational system is extremely intertwined and complex. Each educational choice has a domino effect on all other choices. Thus, while we have provided some recommendations, the Task Force does not propose any single plan of action. Where appropriate, the Task Force makes recommendations in key areas, some of which address immediate concerns while others, may be integrated into longer-range plans. We have provided pros and cons in each section so the Superintendent and School Committee can follow the logic of potential choices. The goal of this report is to identify the challenges, suggest a framework for decision-making and provide a reference tool for the Superintendent of Schools and the School Committee as they plan for the future.

5

“NEIGHBORHOOD” SCHOOLS Background: The first Framingham schoolhouse was built in 1716. Since that time the town has regularly built, demolished, opened, closed, rebuilt, reopened and recycled school buildings to accommodate unanticipated fluctuations in student enrollment, financial crises and shifting demographics in the community. Prior to the 1998 implementation of the School Choice program, the school district designated attendance zones for each school. Children who lived within the boundaries of these zones were assigned to what was called a “neighborhood” or “home district” school. The current “home districts” are based on the redistricting plan developed in 1998 and revised after the closing of Juniper Hill in 2003. This Task Force studied the feasibility of eliminating the elementary school choice program and implementing a “neighborhood” school assignment program. The Task Force assessed the feasibility of this option using the criteria outlined in the Executive Summary. Historical Perspective Historical records show that in the 1950-70’s the Town of Framingham had a peak enrollment of over 15,000 students. To accommodate this large population, the district utilized as many as fifteen elementary, four middle/junior high schools, two high schools and a kindergarten center. Since that time, a number of factors have significantly changed this landscape. These include an overall decline in the number of school-aged children, as well as many families moving to new housing developments (“neighborhoods”) on the north side of town. To accommodate this shifting population, while also properly managing the number of students in each school, the district not only built new schools on the north side but also closed a number of south-side schools. During this period, as the number of south-side elementary schools decreased, the district was often forced to change the boundaries defining the “neighborhoods” associated with each school, sometimes as often as every two years. Because these decisions (known as “redistricting”) were based primarily on the number of school-aged children living in each neighborhood, in many cases neighborhoods became “splintered” with specific streets being assigned to schools outside their immediate geography. In other words, one’s assigned school was not always located close to one’s home. For example: for many years, students living in the Salem End Road area were assigned to the Brophy School. Students living in the Interfaith Terrace area near Woodrow Wilson were assigned to Stapleton on the far side of Route 9.

6

Today, some students live within walking distance of two or more schools, but few have ever been able to walk safely to Barbieri. All these factors coupled with on-going budget constraints have led to the current district configuration of one preschool, eight elementary, three middle schools, one high school and one alternative high school for 8,370 students scattered across 26 square miles. Defining the term “neighborhood”: It was through the just-completed survey process that the Task Force found that community members differ in their definition of “neighborhood” schools and at times use those definitions interchangeably:

• 35.3% said “any school that is attended by the majority of children in my area” • 33% said “any school within 2 miles of my home” • 21.8% said “within 1 mile of home”

Several respondents noted that there exist some “neighborhoods” with no school within three miles and that other sections of town have 3 or 4 schools within one to two miles of each other. Comments ranged from “my neighborhood is any school in my community” to “A school within ½ mile of child-walkable sidewalks.” The definition of “neighborhood” could also include:

• A school that serves the children from the streets that surrounds the school out to a defined perimeter.

• A school that serves defined streets within a school “district” could include blocks of streets from different areas of town.

• A school that serves all the children on one’s particular street whether that school is close by or across town.

Defining the term “Redistricting” Redistricting is the process by which the School Committee determines which streets will be assigned to which schools. In the past, the assignment process was frequently reviewed and districts were reconfigured to respond to fluctuating enrollment. Before the implementation of the School Choice program in 1998 students and families expected, but were never guaranteed, that they would complete elementary or middle school in the same building where they began. To address overcrowding in certain schools the district periodically redistricted addresses to another school. One Task Force member related that between 1956 and1968 she was assigned to seven different schools. Not all students had such dramatic experiences but both educators and families agree that frequent redistricting was disruptive to the educational process. The two most recent redistrictings occurred in 1994 and 1998. In 1994 Framingham underwent a major redistricting to alleviate overcrowding at Barbieri and McCarthy, to create more racially balanced schools and to reassign students from the overcrowded Walsh Middle School, (the only middle school in

7

town), to the newly opened Fuller Middle School. In 1998 the district tweaked the redistricting to correct racial imbalance in its elementary schools and to establish baseline districts in preparation for beginning the School Choice program. The goal was to create balanced schools and to maintain that balance through the school choice program rather than through frequent redistricting. In 2003 Juniper Hill Elementary School was closed. Students were re-assigned to new schools based on their family’s choice of schools and available space. In 2008 the district used the same process to reassign students when the standard strands at Barbieri were removed and the school became a complete Two-Way Bilingual program. The district has been able to manage fluctuations in enrollment through choice and has not had a major redistricting since 1994. Task Force Process The Task Force was charged with analyzing the feasibility of the Framingham Public Schools implementing a neighborhood school model. The Task Force carried out this charge using the following process

1. Surveyed families who have participated in School Choice over the past 10 years. 2. Analyzed enrollment projections to determine the impact on enrollment if current students were

assigned to “neighborhood” schools based on home districts established in the 1998 redistricting, and later modified for the closing of Juniper Hill Elementary School in 2003.

3. Consulted with district professionals who have expertise in specific areas. 4. Compiled lists of pros and cons determined using Task Force criteria and based on data for each

proposed assignment model. The Task Force determined that:

• Assigning students under a “neighborhood” school model where a neighborhood is determined solely by one’s proximity to a school is impossible because current demographics, building locations and the number of seats available in schools do not necessarily equal the number of students in the “neighborhood”. In a district with a fluid population of students entering and withdrawing it is more cost-effective to assign new students to open seats than it is to add a new classroom and teacher to a school, which is already at capacity.

• Over 40% of Framingham students require either an English Language Learner or Special

Education program. For economic and educational reasons, addressed elsewhere in this report, these programs are consolidated in selected school facilities. Each school building has a different number of classrooms and spaces available. There is not a match between the number of students requiring seats in a school and seats available after English Language Learner and Special Education program placement. The cost of duplicating programs in every building would cost more than what the district is currently spending and would offset any gains in transportation savings that a neighborhood model might produce.

8

The Task Force also looked at whether students could be assigned using a “home district” model. The “home district” in current use is based on the boundaries that were established in 1998 and modified in 2003 after the closing of Juniper Hill. The charts below show what the enrollment of each school would be if all children were assigned, without an option for choosing another school, according to the “home districts” they live in today. The chart criteria are: Standard refers to students in a regular classrooms, ELL refers to students receiving bilingual, sheltered or ESL services, and SPED refers to students who are assigned to distinct special education program. It should be noted that,

• Every school’s population would include students in standard, ELL and Special Education programs under a neighborhood model.

• Some of the schools would not have space to accommodate all of the students in the “home”

district, and would need to be redistricted even before implementing a new plan. One school would be at least 300 children over capacity (McCarthy would go from 572 to 900 students).

• 70% of the students who qualify for English Language Learner services live in the McCarthy,

Wilson and Barbieri “home” districts. • 42% of the students who are assigned to a Special Education program live in the McCarthy and

Wilson districts. • If “district” is defined as proximity to a school, 50% of the population would attend three

elementary “neighborhood” schools south of Route 9, while the other 50% would be distributed among the 5 elementary schools north of Route 9. Since Barbieri houses only students in the Two-Way Bilingual program, that would be an even greater burden on McCarthy and Wilson.

The following chart shows what the projected “home district” enrollment would look like broken out by programs.

9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Projected "Home District" Enrollment by Schoolwith Programs

Standard 303 309 376 315 563 228 370 253

Sped 30 34 54 50 96 30 54 83

ELL 101 35 19 35 242 46 85 221

ProjectedHome DistEnrollment

434 378 449 400 901 304 509 557

Bar Bro Dun Hem McC Pot Sta Wil

The following chart shows the existing enrollment in relation to the projected “home district” enrollment.

0100200

300400500600

700800900

1000

Existing Enrollment Compared to Projected "Home District" Enrollment

ExistingEnrollment

483 472 476 579 572 462 396 517

ProjectedHome DistEnrollment

434 378 449 400 901 304 509 557


The following chart shows the Existing 2008-2009 enrollments by school and program.

10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Existing Enrollment by School with Programs

Standard 258 274 408 481 458 358 327 202

Sped 9 21 0 98 114 6 69 61

ELL 216 177 68 0 0 98 0 254

ExistingEnrollment

483 472 476 579 572 462 396 517


The Task Force found that assigning students by “home districts” would be possible only if the following conditions are met:

• Students who require specialized programs are bused to programs in designated locations. Economies of scale that are gained by locating programs in designated areas will be tempered by the need to provide busing from every district to special programs.

• With only four of the district’s schools located south of Route 9 the definition of a “district”

would need to remain flexible so that the district could match the number of seats available with the number of students who need to be served. The school district would retain the ability to “redistrict” as necessary.

• If a school could not accommodate all the students who live in its home district, the school

district would have to determine whether families should be moved to open seats in other schools by offering a limited choice option or by mandated district re-assignment. Based on the survey results most families would prefer to have the option of exercising a choice.

11

Task Force Findings Pros and cons of a “district” model are: Pros

• Parents would be relieved of the responsibility and perceived stress of choosing their child’s school.

• Some families feel that a spirit of community is created when students who live in close

proximity to one another attend the same school.

• By giving the district more license to redefine what constitutes a “neighborhood” district, it will be better able to respond to state and federal mandates or local policy shifts regarding criteria such as socio-economics, geography, race, program placements or opening or closing of school buildings.

• Transportation costs could potentially be reduced if more students were assigned to schools they

could walk to. Cost savings would be reduced by the number of students requiring transportation to special programs or for safety reasons.

• Although busing would continue to some degree, and changes might not impact the number of

buses needed, the amount of time spent on school buses would probably be reduced.

• It would be possible to continue the district’s current practice of consolidating programs in one location under this plan. This practice allows the district to maximize resources and staffing.

Cons

• The longevity of “districts” would be dependent on unpredictable fluctuations in school

population. Fluctuations could require redistricting every 2 to 3 years to maintain and control enrollment in each school and to maximize staffing and space utilization unless there is an option to assign students through a limited choice program.

• If the district model assumes that the “neighborhoods” are assigned to a school and then

programs are placed where space is available, there may not be room to fit complete strands of K-5 specialized programs in the same school. Students in specialized programs may have to move to different schools for different grades to accommodate neighborhood students.

• If the district model assumes programs will be placed first as complete K-5 strands and

neighborhood students are guaranteed placement, the schools may become overcrowded, forcing the need to redistrict.

12

• Under a district assignment model, parents may have a limited option of choices and may be assigned and redistricted when necessary.

• If students are guaranteed a seat in their neighborhood school, schools not have the resources to

respond to an unplanned influx of students who may require additional staff, additional space or new programs to meet their needs.

Recommendations Simply adopting a “neighborhood” model does not appear to meet the needs of all students in the community because existing school buildings are not located in areas with the highest school population density. It is not feasible to address the needs of English Language Learners and Special Education students in the “neighborhood” schools in a cost efficient manner. It also does not provide the flexibility needed to respond to changes in enrollment populations and demographics. If the administration chooses to implement a “home district” model the Task Force believes that the following actions will be necessary:

• Redefine current districts based on the criteria identified by the Task Force apply the expanded definition of “balance”.

• Decide whether to implement K-5 or to phase in with incoming Kindergarten students. • Project the population for each school and redistrict the community before implementing the

model. This would most likely involve creating additional elementary seats in high-density population areas and potentially moving programs.

• Ensure that enough space exists in each school to accommodate standard curriculum, English Language Learners and Special Education students district wide.

• Revise transportation routes. • Develop a communication plan for the community. • Assume that the 2-way Bilingual program at Barbieri will remain as a focused school program

and that Barbieri “home district” students will be assigned a home district. • Maintain a limited choice program to allow parents the option of choosing a school rather than

mandatory assignment.

13

SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM Background The Controlled School Choice program was implemented in 1998 as one component of the district’s Long Range Voluntary Racial Balance and Educational Equity Plan. The plan was submitted in response to a state mandate under Chapter 636 of the Acts of 1974 to comply with the Racial Imbalance Law, which still exists in Massachusetts. The Framingham School Committee approved the plan May 21, 1996 and the Massachusetts Board of Education gave its approval on June 18, 1996. A Framingham policy was voted and approved by the School Committee on December 2, 1997 supporting the goals and objectives of the Racial Imbalance Law. The Long Range Voluntary Racial Balance and Educational Equity Plan included the following components in addition to the controlled choice assignment plan:

• Rebuild and upgrade school facilities such as Woodrow Wilson, Cameron and Framingham High School at a state reimbursement rate to the town of 90%.

• Develop themes or identities to enhance the elementary school curriculum and give parents a basis for making choices regarding which school their child would attend.

• Create a Parent Information Center to facilitate parent communication, registration and assignment of students K-12.

• Provide equitable access to every Framingham school for all children regardless of where they live in the community.

• Balance the diversity in each school by student assignment or program placement. Initially $210,000 was provided through an appropriation under Chapter 636 to support elementary schools as they developed their themes and to partially fund the Parent Information Center. In November 2001 all Chapter 636 funding was eliminated. In spite of this change in funding, the state law and the district’s obligation to honor its contract with the state to implement the Long Range Voluntary Racial Balance and Educational Equity Plan remained in place. As a result of these changes, the Framingham School Department formed a School Choice Review Committee to consider their impact on the current Controlled School Choice program. On December 10, 2001 the Framingham School Committee, based on recommendations from the Review Committee, voted to reaffirm its commitment to educational equity and racial balance. This commitment included a continuation of the existing School Choice student assignment program as well as working towards including socio-economic balance as one of the criteria to be considered in assigning students.

14

Student Assignment In 1994, prior to the inception of the Controlled School Choice program, the School Committee approved nine elementary school districts based on the recommendation of the Superintendent’s Redistricting Committee. Each street was assigned to a particular school. Today, these districts are now referred to as a student’s home district under the School Choice program. Those districts were adjusted in 1998 in preparation for the implementation of the school choice program. Under the School Choice program families are not limited to their home district schools but have the option of choosing any school in the school district. All Kindergarten through grade five students are assigned to schools through the Controlled School Choice program. Assignments are based on, parent choice, a student’s programmatic needs, and space availability. Grades six through eight students are assigned to a middle school based on their elementary school or program. Students new to the district are assigned to a middle school based on their street address regardless of space availability. All entering kindergarten students are assigned to schools using the following guidelines:

1. Assignments to the district’s Two-Way Bilingual Program are made before all school

assignments. Students are assigned by sibling guarantee first and then by lottery if necessary. 2. Students whose first choice is a school where they have a sibling are guaranteed that assignment. 3. Students whose first choice is a school within a half-mile of their home are given that assignment

if space is available. 4. All other students are placed in their first, second, third or fourth choice schools, by lottery if

necessary, based on space availability. 5. Wait lists are created for all schools where there was more demand than space available.

Students whose first choice is their “home district” school are placed at the top of the list. Typically most families on wait lists are offered their preferred placement before the lists expire.

6. Students requiring an English Language Learner or Special Education program are assigned to programs after a review of their educational needs by each program Director.

Each year 90-98% of families whose children will be in a standard curriculum program receive their first choice school. The number of families that actually chose their home district school as their first choice varies from school to school, and ranges from 27%-55 %. The vast majority of families who chose their “neighborhood” school as their first choice were assigned to that school. Students who were assigned to special programs were more likely to be assigned to a program outside of their “neighborhood” school.

15

Racial Balance The district’s plan called for each elementary school to be balanced within +/- 10% of the district’s overall minority/majority ratio. The definitions of race are based on Federal Census Bureau guidelines. The regulations ask Framingham families to self identify during the registration process. Families may indicate more than one race. Families who identify as Portuguese/Brazilian are defined as a majority group (White) under Federal guidelines. The Federal Government does not consider “language” as a factor in determining a student’s majority/minority status. In 1994 the District’s October 1 report, required by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, listed Framingham as 30% minority / 70% majority. In October 2008 that district ratio was 35%/65%. On the elementary level the ratio is 37%: 63%. Thus, to be considered “balanced” under the district’s Long Range Voluntary Racial Balance and Educational Equity Plan a school’s population must include 27-47% students self-identified as minority. The chart below provides historical data on the District’s racial balance:

OCTOBER 1 RACIAL BALANCE STATISTICS FOR DISTRICT and ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FROM 1994-2007

District % (Min/Maj) Elementary % (Min/Maj) 1994 29/71 28/72 1995 30/70 29/71 1996 30/70 31/69 1997 30/70 32/68 1998 29/71 32/68 1999 30/70 32/68 2000 31/69 33/67 2007 34/66 35/65 2008 35/65 37/63 The chart below lists each elementary school’s October 2008 racial balance percentages. School %Majority % Minority Mitigating Factors Barbieri 28% 72% 2Way Spanish Program Brophy 37% 63% Spanish/ELL Program Dunning 61% 39% Hemenway 77% 23% McCarthy 61% 39% Potter Road 88% 12% Portuguese/ELL Program Stapleton 75% 25% Wilson 66% 34% Portuguese/ELL Program Several factors have hindered the district’s ability to maintain racial balance:

16

• Changes in Federal law, most notably the June 28, 2008 Supreme Court ruling which stated that race could no longer be used as the single factor in student assignment.

• Redistribution of students after the closing of Juniper Hill Elementary school in 2003

• Less flexibility in assigning students because of transportation and space limitations

• Consolidation of English Language Learner programs

• Balance of minority/majority students who choose certain schools as their first choice

In June, 2008, Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court stated that, while achieving diversity is a compelling national interest, factors other than race alone should also be considered such as: strategic siting of new school buildings, drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the racial demographics of neighborhoods, allocating resources for special programs, recruiting students and faculty in a targeted manner, and tracking enrollments, performance and other statistics by race. Any future assignment plan in Framingham must consider all these factors. Parent Survey Highlights Parents whose children participated in the district’s School Choice program within the last ten years were asked to respond to a Task Force survey. When asked how they felt about the opportunity to choose their child’s school:

• 43.3% said “it was very important to be involved in choosing my child school”

• 21.4% said “it was an interesting experience and I was happy to participate”

• 13.1% said “parents should not have to choose schools”

• 6.6% said “it was difficult to choose because schools seemed similar”

• 3.0% said “school choice is too much work for parents”

Task Force Findings Task Force members used the criteria listed in this report’s introduction to evaluate the district’s current school choice model. The Task Force found that there are both positive and negative aspects to the program. Below is a general discussion of these findings: Pros

• Choice allows the district to avoid redistricting and it allows for flexibility in the placement of students as they enter the district throughout the school year. This flexibility is especially critical when one considers that twenty-five percent (25%) of those students registered between July 1 and October 1, 2008 and the district is required to project and finalize its budget well before July 1.

• Choice allows students to be assigned where seats are available district-wide and decreases the need to add unanticipated staffing once the budget has been determined.

17

• Class size(s) can be adjusted so that schools with standard curriculum and special education or English Language Learner programs can have enough classroom space to provide opportunities for all students to learn together.

• Choice allows families with siblings in the same school to be guaranteed that they will not be separated unless they require a special program.

• Choice can allow for the development of specialized programs and true themes in our schools such as the Two-Way Bilingual Program and Expanded Learning Time Programs. In some cases, such at the Two-Way Bilingual Program, these specialized programs may “naturally” help create diversity in a school.

• Families are not limited to the schools and programs in their geographical enrollment area but can attend schools throughout the community based on what they feel is best for their child and not based on where they could afford to buy a home. Prior to 1998 the Two-Way Bilingual program was only open to families in the Barbieri district.

• The Choice program has successfully accommodated 90-98% of the families with their first choice, including those who chose their home district school.

• Cost Efficiencies: Determining the placement of programs centrally maximizes resources and creates cost efficiencies.

• Central Registration:

• Allows the district to be more fiscally responsible.

• Allows for more consistent and accurate assignments of Special Education and English Language Learner students.

• Maximizes efficiencies in terms of registration staffing and data management.

• Makes communication more efficient between the Transportation Department, the Parent Information Center and the individual schools.

• Allows the district to respond quickly and efficiently when budget constraints require the reassignment of students.

• Allows the district to comply with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) increased demand for centralized reporting of data and accountability reports.

18

Cons

• A real or perceived difference in programs, curriculum and services at schools can impact family choice and cause some schools to be under or over selected

• 11.3% of the parents who completed the school choice survey reported that Principal leadership is an important factor in choosing a school, however school tours provide only snapshot view of a principal’s leadership style, and not all families are able to tour the schools.

• Students participating in Special Education or English Language Learner programs may have limited or no choice. Although the district goal is to keep siblings together, when these programs expand or contract siblings may be separated.

• Students living in a “neighborhood” may choose outside that neighborhood, or be assigned to a program in a school outside that neighborhood. This takes away from the sense that everyone in the neighborhood attends the same school. However, even prior to School Choice there were always students in every district who attended public and parochial schools or special programs outside of their “neighborhood”.

• Choice creates anxiety for some parents.

• The goals of accommodating a high percentage of first choice requests and meeting the district’s overall racial balance targets can sometimes be in direct conflict.

• Assigning through a choice program requires that the “pool” of students who have chosen a school reflect the diversity of the district if “balanced” assignments are to be made. To date the district has never required a family to attend a school strictly to achieve diversity. To date, the district has not assigned students to schools they have not identified as one of their choices.

• Parents who do not receive their first choice, which historically has been between 2 and 10 percent, may, at first, be angry, disappointed and frustrated.

• Families who choose out of their home district may have longer bus rides. This may become more common as the district moves toward consolidating bus routes and reducing the number of busses. A more specific breakdown of costs associated with school assignments can be found in this report’s transportation section.

• 38% of the students who live within a 1 mile walk zone of a home district school have chosen to attend a school in another district, sometimes specifically so that they can be transported.

Recommendations The Task Force found that, using its evaluation criteria, the current choice program rated high for longevity, fiscal responsibility, controlling class size, balancing programs and overall parent satisfaction. However, some of the concerns expressed by the Task Force and the community should be taken into consideration, such as the anxiety surrounding student assignment, the perceived loss of “neighborhood” identity by some segments of the community and the desire to ensure diversity in our schools. Concerns regarding transportation are addressed extensively in the Transportation section of this report. The Task Force recommends that the school district:

19

• Revise Framingham School Committee policy JECC to expand the current definition of diversity and balance and include the additional strategies recommended by the Supreme Court in June 2008.

• Expand the residential preference from ½ mile to 1 mile for choice assignment; in line with the districts elementary walk zones. This would still be a preference and not a guarantee, but would likely result in more students being assigned to a school they can walk to, if that is their choice.

• Add a “home district” preference to the student assignment process. Under this model, siblings would be assigned to a school first, followed by students who live within a mile of a school and then students who live in that school’s “home district”. Only after these students have been assigned would students who live outside the home district be assigned. Residential and home district preferences would still be considered preferences and not guarantees so that the district can continue to control for shifting enrollment fluctuations and program placement needs. The school district would have to review the current “home district” map to analyze whether any changes or redrawing of boundaries is needed, particularly if there will be changes in middle school assignment.

• Implement a system that requires students to pay for a “bus pass” if they could walk to their “home district” schools but choose to attend a different school that necessitates taking the bus. This would also apply to walkers whose family requests that a child be picked up/delivered to a childcare. **This can only be required if there are enough seats in the home district school to accommodate all walkers who choose that school. Those living within walking distance of several schools would be assigned a primary home district school. The district would have to determine whether this is in compliance with state laws regarding transportation.

• Request that central administration implement an annual review of schools that are under-selected and develop an action plan to increase enrollment or address resource, leadership or program inequities.

20

PLACE PROGRAMS FIRST Background The Framingham Public Schools educate a diverse body of students. Included in that group are students who require specialized programs to meet their educational needs and to help them succeed in the classroom. Every student can benefit from an opportunity to be educated alongside their peers regardless of their individual needs. Federal and state law requires that students with disabilities be educated alongside students without disabilities in the public schools. This is referred to as the “Least Restrictive Environment.” When students with disabilities are educated alongside their peers, there are proven social and academic benefits. Students with disabilities have access to the standard curriculum and demonstrate greater gains in performance on school and statewide assessments. The same is true of students who are acquiring and improving their language acquisition skills. Interacting with their peers provides an opportunity to model and practice newly developed language and vocabulary. The goal of the English Language Learner program has been and continues to be, providing the best education for English Language Learners to learn English and achieve academically in a standards based environment. Special Education Over the last 20 years districts statewide have experienced a rise in the number of students requiring Special Education programs. Framingham is not unique in this situation nor is there an expectation that the demand for services will decrease going forward. According to a report done by former Hudson Superintendent Sheldon Berman this trend is not caused by school district policies and practices but rather by a perfect storm of outside factors; advanced medical technology, a higher percentage of children living in poverty, deinstitutionalization of special needs children, privatization of services and an increase in the number of families experiencing social or economic stress. Between FY89-FY99 there was an 83% increase in preschool special needs enrollments. Thirty-six percent Framingham’s current BLOCKS public preschool program is dedicated to children in need of special education services. The school district works in collaboration with Early Intervention to identify children who may qualify for special education services once they turn three years old. Fifty-eight new children are projected to be eligible for services in the 2008-2009 school year. Projections are fluid however, and children who are not currently served by Early Intervention may also enter the district and require services. School districts statewide and Framingham in particular must be prepared to respond with program resources, space and staffing. Although children in special programs are among the district’s most challenged students, classes for children who require a more restrictive environment (i.e. substantially separate classrooms) have frequently been split across several schools, for instance K-2 in one school, then 3-5 in another school or relocated often to make use of available space.

21

The district cannot afford to establish expensive, stand-alone programs to meet needs in every school. Consolidating Programs and building cohesive K-5 strands is educationally and fiscally more desirable. Over the past ten years, 28 new classes have been developed throughout the Framingham Public School system to address the increasing number of students with disabilities. Students with challenging disabilities continue to require programs and services to address their needs. The district anticipates that additional classes will need to be created over the next five years. Predicting special education trends is an inexact science. School districts must build in ways to have the flexibility to respond when the need arises. English Language Learners In addition to the Special Education program the district also serves children for whom English is a second language. By law, whenever there are more than 20 native speakers in a specific language group who require English instruction, the district must develop a program to meet their needs. In Framingham, the majority of the children requiring these services speak Portuguese or Spanish. In other communities the needs may be different. In Lowell for instance, it may include students who speak Cambodian or Khmer, in Cambridge and Boston it may include students who speak Korean, Haitian or Chinese. Each community must address the instruction of second language learners in such a way that they have the same access to the curriculum as standard curriculum students. This too requires that the district plan for sufficient resources and space to meet their needs. Location of English Language Learner and Special Education programs:

PRESCHOOL BLOCKS Programs Grades #Classrooms

ELL Spanish Bilingual Pre-K 1 Spanish Immersion 1 Portuguese Bilingual 1 ESL 0.5 SPED Developmental Delay/Intel. Impaired 3.5 Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities 0.5

22

Elementary Schools Schools Programs Grades #Classroom

Barbieri

ELL Barbieri 2 Way Bilingual Program K-5 22 SPED Multi-handicapped Multi Graded 3-5 1 Developmental Delay/Intl. Impaired K 1 Brophy ELL Spanish Bilingual K-5 4 Spanish Sheltered K-5 5 SPED Intellectually Impaired 3-5 1* Dunning ELL ESL K-1 2 Co-taught ESL with Standard 2-5 4 SPED No program Hemenway ELL No program SPED Developmentally Delayed/Intel. Impaired K-1, 1-3,4-5 3

Inclusion Program K-5 6 (shared) McCarthy ELL No program SPED Learning Disabilities 3-5 3 Emotional / Behavioral Disabilities K-1, 2, 3 3 Inclusion Program K-5 6 (shared) Potter ELL Portuguese Bilingual K-3 4 Portuguese Sheltered K, 1 2 SPED Autism 4-5 1 Stapleton ELL No Program SPED Emotional /Behavioral Disabilities 4,5 2 Inclusion program K-5 6 (shared) Woodrow Wilson

ELL Portuguese Bilingual K-5 6 Portuguese Sheltered K-5 7 SPED Learning Disabilities 1,2 1 Autism K, 1-2 2 Inclusion Program K-5 6 (shared)

23

Middle School Program Schools Programs Grades #Classroom

Cameron ELL No Program SPED Learning Disabilities 6-8 3 Emotional / Behavioral Disabilities 6-8 3 Fuller ELL All Bilingual/Sheltered/ESL

students from Dunning, Brophy and Wilson

6-8 17

SPED Intellectually Impaired/Learning Disabled

6-8 5

Autism 5-6 1 Walsh ELL Two-Way Bilingual Program 6-8 3 SPED Learning Disabilities 6-8 6

ELL refers to English Language Learners SPED refers to Special Education Programs

* 2 classes at Brophy share 1 classroom ** No Multi-handicapped program at Middle School

Placing Programs First Scenario: The sub committee projected a possible scenario. The goal was to develop complete strands (grades K-5) of programs in each school. In some schools it would mean that fewer Kindergarten students could be assigned to accommodate space for strands to be developed. Each school would have a standard strand and either an English Language Learner or a Special Education program. Each strand other than Emotional/Behavioral Disability strand would be K-5 The scenario below allows for 386 standard K seats in the district. The current K capacity is 470 seats. This year there are 423 standard curriculum K children assigned to Kindergarten. If we had placed programs first, 88 standard curriculum kindergarten students would be “unassigned” because of a reduction in the number of kindergarten sections at the schools listed. This would be the equivalent of 4 Kindergarten sections. This scenario would also require that a location be found for a K-5 Autism strand, a need which has grown exponentially in the district over the last 10 years.

24

EXAMPLE: School ELL SPED Standard Unassigned Barbieri 2way Program (2K) Multi-handicapped None Brophy Spanish Bilingual None 2 K Classes Spanish Sheltered Dunning ESL K ED/BD K-2 2 K Classes -22 K Students Hemenway None Inclusion K-5

Developmental Delay K-5 3 K classes -22 K students

McCarthy None Inclusion K-5 Learning Disabilities K-5

3 K Classes -22 K students

Potter Portuguese Bilingual None 2K classes -22 K students Portuguese Sheltered Stapleton None Inclusion

ED/BD 3-5 3 K classes

Wilson Portuguese Bilingual Portuguese Sheltered

Inclusion 2 K classes

In order for this scenario to be implemented additional space must be created throughout the district. This can only be accomplished by opening another school building or re-organizing what currently exists to create more open seats.

Task Force Findings: Pros

• Building consistent and cohesive program strands in a building allows all students, special program and standard students to remain in the same building for K-5, unless their individual needs change. This provides stability for parents and students.

• Creating full stands would eliminate multiple transitions for some of our most challenged students.

• Consolidating programs in one place is cost efficient and maximizes resources and staffing. • Professional Development can be focused in schools and expertise can be developed, nurtured

and supported. • This option can be implemented with a limited choice program. • Strong collaborations with community programs like Early Intervention help the district plan for

special education program needs beginning at the preschool level.

25

Cons

• Placing programs first may be in direct conflict with a return to a "home district model" as it could limit the number of available seats for standard curriculum children and require students who are placed in a program to attend a school outside their district. Placing programs first may limit the number of standard seats available and eventually impact the number of standard strands that feed to specific middle school. For instance, if McCarthy builds a K-5 Learning Disabilities strand it may require limiting the number of standard seats available, thus impacting Fuller, its feeder middle school.

• The district does not currently have adequate space to place programs first in the elementary schools and adequately accommodate the standard curriculum students. This could be accomplished by opening another school or potentially re-organizing current facilities, but would involve significant expenditures.

• More classroom space can be created but it may require returning to half-day kindergarten, converting space that is presently being used for Art and Music classes, or consolidating classes. Many spaces have already been converted. The demand for full day kindergarten has increased since 1998 and the district has been able to accommodate the demand. Returning to half-day programs would have an impact on families and students.

• It is possible that not all students that live within walking distance of a school could attend that school because of the space needed to house program students.

• The inability to predict the potential needs of incoming students could impact the cost effectiveness of the program.

• Consolidating programs may overwhelm a school if not considered carefully unless additional resources are added at an additional cost.

• Growth in Special Education and English Language Learner program may make it difficult to house multiple strands within the current building capacities.

Recommendations The Task Force recommends and supports the goal of building cohesive program strands district wide if adequate space exists. In the interim we recommend that some immediate concerns need to be addressed: Phase in the process by moving one or two classes of Developmentally Delayed/Intellectually Impaired students from Brophy to Hemenway in FY10 to complete the Developmentally Delayed/Intellectually Impaired strand which is already in place at Hemenway. This would address the problem of two classes sharing one classroom at Brophy. This may require assigning one less class of Kindergartners to Hemenway in the FY 10 school year to open classroom space. Additional classroom space is needed at BLOCKS to serve projected preschool special education children and maintain a healthy balance of standard curriculum students. A phased-in plan for relocating offices should be implemented for the 2009-1010 school year. This would require relocating the Office of Technology, the Office of Bilingual/Sheltered and ESL and the Parent Information Center. The eventual gain would be four classrooms. Attention needs to be given to the impact of program placement at Fuller and the inability to adequately allow for interaction between students in the English Language Learner Program and standard curriculum programs. See Middle School section of this document.

26

Background Over the past 20 years Framingham has moved from a “Junior High” model to a “Middle School” model for the education of early adolescents ages 10-15. Educators have found that the Middle School model more effectively addresses the learning and developmental needs of adolescents because it bridges the sheltered environment of the elementary classroom and the independence of the modern high school model. In the Middle School model, teachers work together in teams with a specific group of students in grades 6, 7 and 8. Instead of moving from class to class, the design of a “Junior High” model, middle school students remain in one area of the building with the two to four teachers assigned to their team. The teachers develop a deeper understanding of their students’ needs, strengths and interests and work together to plan lessons that make connections between subjects. The middle school model requires appropriate space for teams to work together as a unit. Many residents of Framingham attended or remember when Walsh Middle School was the only junior high in town, educating an astounding 1600 students in a single building. The former Framingham South High building was reopened as Fuller Middle School to alleviate the overcrowding. In March 1998, the district had a space analysis done by the New England School Development Council (NESDEC) to determine how to transition Walsh and Fuller to a “true” middle school model. One of the recommendations was to reopen a redesigned Cameron Middle School to create an ideal enrollment of approximately 600 students in each of the three middle school buildings and create the space needed to implement the team teaching model. Since that time, changes in administrative infrastructure, budget cuts, enrollment fluctuations and the needs of the school population have impacted the middle school experience in Framingham. In 2005 The National Middle School Association reported that the successful education of young adolescent students in grades 5-8 “does not depend on a grade configuration within a school but what goes on in those classrooms and within those schools.” Many communities have implemented variations of the middle school model. They include K-8 schools, Grade 5-8 schools, Grade 6 centers, Grade 9 centers, Grade 8-12 High Schools and combination Junior/Middle level schools. Ideally the focus remains on the developmental needs of this age group resulting in a “middle level education” rather than focusing on a specific grade configuration or ignoring their unique needs all together.

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

27

Assignment of Middle School students Students are assigned to Walsh, Fuller or Cameron based on the elementary school they attended. Newcomers to the district, are assigned by “middle school district” based on their street address, without regard to how many other students are already enrolled in the building. The only exception is for students who require a special program. Fuller Middle School hosts the districts English Language Learner program and all three middle schools host a variety of Special Education programs. Each spring, students can apply to transfer to a different school, but transfers are granted based on space and existing enrollment. Transfers to Walsh have been capped for the last two years due to high enrollment. Transfer requests either into or out of Cameron and Fuller have generally been accommodated. Last spring, students who requested a transfer to Cameron so that they could take advantage of the Expanded Learning Time program were accommodated. If students request a transfer but require a special program the respective department must first approve their request. Changes to the Middle School Feeders and Programs Prior to the 2003 closing of Juniper Hill Elementary School each middle school received students from three specific “feeder” elementary schools. This system distributed students evenly to the next level. Pre-2003 Feeder System School Feeder

Schools Feeder Bilingual Program

Cameron Potter Stapleton Wilson

Wilson: Portuguese Bilingual Program

Fuller McCarthy Brophy Juniper

Brophy/Juniper Spanish Bilingual Program Dunning ESL Program

Walsh Dunning Hemenway Barbieri

Barbieri 2 Way Bilingual Program

After 2003, the Juniper Hill feeder to Fuller was eliminated, the Spanish bilingual program was moved to Brophy Elementary, and the Brophy Two-Way program was move to Barbieri.

28

Current Feeder System School Feeder

Schools Feeder Bilingual Program

Cameron Potter Stapleton Wilson

Fuller McCarthy Brophy

Brophy/Wilson/English Language Learners Dunning ESL Program

Walsh Dunning Hemenway Barbieri

Barbieri 2 Way Bilingual Program

The English Language Learner programs were consolidated at Fuller Middle School for two reasons, economic and educational. The number of bilingual students in the district has steadily declined from 1,530 in 2000-2001 to 1,204 in 2003-2004 to 1200 in 2008-2009. Economically, duplicating programs and staffing resources in two middle schools was not cost effective. Educationally, the program model was changed to an English as a Second Language model, more similar to the one used at the high school than the one used at the elementary schools. In the ESL model students are grouped by their English proficiency level rather than by whether they speak Portuguese or Spanish. This is one of the reasons why dividing the program into two schools is more complex than it was before.

29

Middle School Issues

1. Enrollment numbers have fluctuated and are now distributed unevenly among the three middle schools.

The loss of approximately 50 students from the Juniper Hill 5th grade feeder and the subsequent increase in the number of students feeding to Walsh from Barbieri and Hemenway has caused Walsh enrollment to increase and Fuller’s to decrease. Cameron has remained relatively stable. Last year, as part of cost reduction plan, standard education students at Barbieri were re-assigned and the school became a complete Two-Way Bilingual Program school. Standard curriculum students were allowed to choose different elementary schools. While students in grades 3 to 5 were guaranteed a seat at Walsh when they reached middle school, in the future there will be no standard curriculum students feeding from Barbieri to Walsh.

100

600

1100

1600

2100

MIDDLE SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT FROM OCT 1999 TO OCT 2008

Cameron Fuller Walsh Totals

Cameron 0 234 460 621 523 474 487 498 518 520

Fuller 1019 1006 857 752 770 691 632 573 534 494

Walsh 939 864 763 639 600 650 693 749 761 817

Totals 1958 2104 2080 2012 1893 1815 1812 1820 1813 1831

Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-04 Oct-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-08

30

2. Middle schools need a critical mass of standard curriculum students to effectively mainstream students from special programs into standard classrooms. Fuller Middle School has a smaller number of standard curriculum students to do this effectively. All students – standard curriculum, Special Education, and English Language Learners – benefit from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is the practice of bringing together students of all abilities and learning styles so that they can learn from each other. There are two types of mainstreaming. The first type of mainstreaming occurs on a daily basis. Students who spend most of their day in distinct Special Education or English Language Learner classrooms regularly join their standard curriculum classmates for some academic subjects such as art, music and physical education. The second type of mainstreaming occurs when students exit their programs and move permanently into a standard classroom. The number of students in special programs in relation to the number of standard curriculum students varies at the three middle schools. School Total Enrollment % Standard % Special

Education % English Language Learners

Cameron 518 90% 10% 0% Fuller 490 60% 10% 30% Walsh 812 85% 8% 7% The statistics above reflect only the percentages of students who are specifically assigned to a special program. Every middle school has students who are part of the standard curriculum who may be receiving special education or language resource support, but schools with a high percentage of students in special programs and a smaller number of standard curriculum students face an additional challenge as they try to provide mainstreaming opportunities for everyone. No one benefits from a situation in which the needs of one population overwhelm another. This includes the student who is trying to master a new language and needs peers with whom to practice, the special education student who needs typical role models, and the standard curriculum student who benefits from developing the team skills needed to work and learn in a global society. Standard curriculum classes that do not adequately accommodate the mainstreaming of other students limit the potential for the vigorous sharing of ideas and solutions.

31

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MIDDLE SCHOOLS ALL BILINGUAL PROGRAMS ----TBE BIL ESL SHEL 2WAY

CAM BIL FUL BIL WAL2WAY E&S

CAM BIL 0 41 78 112 0 0 0 0 0 0

FUL BIL 235 253 184 183 205 192 205 198 169 142

WAL2WAY E&S 62 96 100 95 84 105 119 113 128 150


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPED PROGRAM COMPARISON

CAM SPED FUL SPED WAL SPED

CAM SPED 0 4 20 16 23 23 38 47 51 54

FUL SPED 40 58 44 46 41 39 44 43 47 53

WAL SPED 49 61 64 60 68 78 82 69 68 70


32

2. The Socio-economic balance between the three middle schools is uneven.

School Total Enrollment % Free and

Reduced Lunch Title 1 School

Cameron 518 39% Yes Fuller 490 55% Yes Walsh 812 27% No

Percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch by feeder school

School Feeder % Free and Reduced Lunch Cameron Wilson 58% * Potter 22% Stapleton 26% Fuller Brophy 53% McCarthy 37% Walsh Hemenway 8% Dunning 16%* Barbieri 54% * English Language Learners go to Fuller

The Task Force identified Socio-economic diversity as a positive factor in the education of Framingham students. Since the June 2008 Supreme Court ruling which broadened the definition of diversity, some districts have begun to use socio-economics as a way of assigning students to schools. The Cambridge Public Schools have had this assignment program in place for a number of years. There are advantages and disadvantages to achieving “balance”. Schools that have a higher percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch may also qualify for concentrated Title 1 services, schools that may have the need but not meet the Title 1 guidelines may be left to provide services but without outside support. However, it appears that the placement of programs, the balance of standard to special program students and the need to provide a varied socio-economic mix are all important in creating a stable and productive middle school learning environment.

33

4. Families are divided about how students should be assigned to middle school. The October 2008 School Choice Survey asked families: “How should Framingham assign children to Middle school?” Respondents selected the following answers:

a. 45% Continue with current feeder system b. 20% Assign based on Street Address and redistrict when necessary c. 24% Implement a Middle School Choice program d. 6% District should assign based on space and educational needs.

The way in which students are assigned to a middle school can have both a positive and negative result. Under a feeder system, controlling the enrollment numbers at Middle School is linked to controlling the number of students entering Kindergarten at each of the respective feeders. This requires the district to plan 6 years into the future when assigning students to kindergarten. It may mean that fewer families will be accommodated in their choice at the kindergarten level to make sure that the potential number of students entering their 6th grade feeder school will be fairly equal. A feeder system requires a high degree of “control” so that the district can plan effectively. Under a “street address” system, students would be assigned to a middle school regardless of where they had attended elementary school. Some families feel that this would create a hardship for students who have made friends throughout their elementary career and are now transitioning to a new setting without the support of some of their peers. Principals and teachers have also expressed a concern that it may be more difficult to plan transition activities and share information between schools if students are coming from a random street assignment rather than from an already pre-determined feeder school and are entering as a group. One of the potential benefits of a street assignment model may be that it would easier to determine enrollment numbers at the time of the 5th to 6th grade transition rather than at Kindergarten. A new 5th to 6th grade transition program would have to be developed and a very structured program for transferring school information between teachers and administrators would have to be implemented. Under a “Middle School Choice” model students would choose one of the three middle schools and follow the same process as elementary students, potentially with the same modifications that are being recommended in the School Choice section of this report. Families in Framingham regularly “choose” alternative middle school experiences, either by applying for transfers within the district or by choosing schools outside of the Framingham Public Schools. The November 10, 2008 report of “Framingham Students Attending Other Schools” indicated that 226 Framingham students in grades 6, 7, 8 are attending schools other than the Framingham Public Schools. The schools families chose include private, parochial and charter schools. Of the 226 students cited, 103 attend the McAuliffe Regional Charter School, 34 attend the Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter School of Marlborough (AMSA).

34

5. Community perceptions about differences between the three middle schools in the areas of student achievement, racial and socio-economic diversity, parental involvement, equity of program offerings, class sizes and building facilities all play a role in how families view the middle school experience. Each of the perceptions above were identified as areas of concern during discussions about the middle schools in Framingham. The Task Force did not do an extensive analysis of the middle school curriculum, the student achievement rates of each school or the results of MCAS testing in relation to student subgroups, however since these issues impact the perception of the middle school experience each one deserves to be addressed and discussed with a full complement of facts to inform the discussion. The Task Force did, as previously noted, address the issue of differences in socioeconomic diversity. The Task Force also noted that Fuller Middle School is the oldest of the three middle school buildings and does require an upgrade to bring it into parity with the other two newer middle school buildings. Middle School Sub-Committee Process The Middle School subcommittee of the larger Task Force met separately, multiple times, to discuss the specific issues of the middle schools. The Subcommittee:

• Reviewed current enrollment data per school and projections for the next 3 years • Met with all three middle school Principals to discuss issues in depth • Reviewed responses to middle school questions on the Parent Choice Survey results from October

2008. The sub-committee developed and considered 9 options for addressing the issues raised about middle schools. They are listed below in two major categories: the first is Changes to the Feeder System the second; Grade Structure Changes specifically address the goal of increasing enrollment in the middle schools Two other options, such as the development of K-8 schools or creating a magnet school at Fuller are addressed in the Restructuring Options section of this report. One major finding of the Task Force is that middle school assignment is a complex issue and requires further study beyond the scope of this group. The role of the Task Force was to gather information and data for consideration by the administration. The Task Force did not recommend implementation of any single option. Each option involves many trade-offs. Some options may be discarded because they appear to cause too much disruption, some may be discarded because they would increase the cost of transportation or staffing and some may appear to be too radical but may be necessary if the economic climate does not improve. Some of the options may be sound and educationally desirable but will need to be phased in over a period of years and will not provide an immediate “fix”. The Pros and Cons and questions that require additional study have been noted. The Task Force did not make any assumptions unless supported by data.

35

Options

I. Changes to the Feeder Systems: 1. Change Hemenway to feed Fuller instead of Walsh, allow students who would be walkers and

students who would have siblings at Walsh the year they are entering 6th grade to attend Walsh Pros

• Increases the number of standard curriculum students feeding Fuller. There are currently 88 students in Hemenway grade 5.

• Alleviates overcrowding at Walsh more quickly than will happen naturally. • Removing potential walkers to Walsh, and busing other Hemenway students to Fuller

instead of Walsh may not significantly add transportation costs since they are already being transported

Cons

• The enrollment numbers at Fuller become too large within a few years and numbers at Walsh become too small.

• The enrollment numbers at Walsh and Fuller will begin to even out on their own within 3 years because of the change at Barbieri and the increase of students entering from McCarthy.

• Hemenway’s 5th grade graduating class will be split between two schools. • Hemenway currently serves anywhere from 5-15 children on the autism spectrum –

children who have severe difficulty making friends and adapting to changes and social situations. Teacher expertise and established programs have been built at Walsh. Students from McCarthy and Stapleton also go to Walsh for the social skills programs. The program would either have to move to Fuller or these students would continue to feed to Walsh without their peers

Further Discussion Needed:

Using projected numbers assumes that every 5th grade student will transition to a middle school in Framingham. Further data and information from current 5th grade parents, is needed to determine if this assumption is correct.

36

2. Change Dunning to feed Fuller instead of Walsh, allow students who would be walkers and students who would have siblings at Walsh the year they are entering 6th grade to attend Walsh

Pros

• Dunning already splits its 5th grade because students in the ESL program already feed to Fuller. By becoming a feeder to Fuller, Dunning would actually keep its 5th grade together.

Cons

• Dunning is on the same campus as Walsh Middle, moving it as a feeder from Walsh could potentially increase transportation costs


The specific number of students who would become riders to Fuller versus walkers to Walsh if either Hemenway or Dunning were changed needs to be addressed specifically once the 5th grade transition numbers are known.

3. Change Brophy to feed to Walsh and Hemenway or Dunning to feed to Fuller (minus walkers to Walsh and those with siblings) Pros

• Switching Brophy to Walsh will reduce overall enrollment numbers and will not overload Fuller by having Brophy, Hemenway or Dunning and McCarthy all feeding to the same school

Cons

• Brophy has traditionally fed Fuller standard and English Language Learner programs, 5th grade classes would be split, since only the standard curriculum students would be moving.

Further Discussion Needed: Would this option still be viable if other changes occurred at Brophy and standard curriculum numbers were increased?

37

4. Feed Barbieri Two-Way program to Fuller (instead of Walsh)

Pros

• Two-way students on the English side of the program would be added to Fuller Cons

• All students at Barbieri are in the Two-Way Bilingual program. It would not improve the balance at Fuller significantly because 50% of the students in the Two–Way are English Language Learners

• The Two-Way program provides some diversity of students at Walsh

5. Eliminate the feeder system, and assign Middle Schools by street address or zones

Pros

• The District could assign/distribute students evenly among the schools based on available space,

• The District would have more control over how many students would require busing, although it would still be limited by school location.

Cons

• This plan creates anxiety for families of 5th graders, who have been accustomed to knowing their child’s middle school assignment at Kindergarten.

• 5th grade classmates could be split to different middle schools • Grade 5 transition activities would need to be revised. Each middle school would have to

develop new ways to build relationships with students at all eight elementary schools

Further Discussion Needed: How would this plan be implemented? How many siblings would be separated?

38

6. Leave all feeders as is, no changes.

Pros

• Maintains status quo for families, students, teachers and administration. • Numbers begin to even out over the three schools over 3 years.

Cons

• Does not address the need for more standard students or improve the socio-economic balance at Fuller

7. Re-open Juniper Hill and restore the 3 feeder system, leave 3 feeders as they are Pros • Restoring the “three feeder system” would improve distribution of standard curriculum

students. Cons • Opening and operating an additional school would create costs • It would not alleviate the need for more standard curriculum students at Fuller unless the

school opened as a K-5 immediately. II. Grade Structure Adjustments:

8. Move 6th grades back into elementary schools, Open Cameron as a 9th elementary, create two 7-8 Middle Schools at Fuller and Walsh; Pros

• Infuses more standard curriculum students into Fuller as soon as it is implemented. • Allows 6th graders more time in the sheltered elementary environment. • May retain students who otherwise would transfer to the charter school at Grade 6 • Facilitates implementation of changes to secondary level busing, if the District were to

decide to eliminate all transportation for grades 7-12 except that mandated by the state Additional space would be available to develop special education strands at the elementary level.

Cons

39

• Returning to a two-year middle level experience creates frequent transitions for students at a vulnerable point in their development.

• A two-year middle school means there is less time for relationship building between students and faculty.

• Parent involvement may be reduced since it is a two year experience • 6th graders may lose access to higher level science lab equipment, math or language labs

advanced performing arts opportunities and other extra-curricular activities • Opening Cameron as an elementary school would require re-assigning students from

throughout the district to build the school as a K-6 • Some elementary schools may not have room to accommodate 6th grades unless

Kindergartens are moved to an Early Childhood Center • The addition of a ninth elementary school would mean uneven “feeders” to two Grade 7/8

Middle Schools • This change would impact every school in the district • Opening Cameron as an elementary would mean that the majority of the elementary seats are

now located on the north side of town • Cameron was specifically built with the middle school model in mind • The potential impact on transportation and building reopening costs would need to be

determined

9. Move the 5th grades from Brophy and McCarthy to Fuller to create a 5-8 school

Pros • Provides Fuller with more standard curriculum students • Only Brophy and McCarthy families would benefit from middle school resources and

programming • Brophy and McCarthy would become K-4 schools creating space for additional standard

curriculum students at Brophy or for building complete Special Education strands at McCarthy

• Fuller has already piloted this model successfully when Juniper Hill 5th graders were placed at Fuller

40

Cons • This option doesn’t immediately increase the number of standard curriculum students in 7th

and 8th grade where they are needed for mainstreaming. • Brophy and McCarthy 5th grade families would be the only ones asked to make this

transition. • Brophy has seen considerable change over the past six years, with the move of the Juniper

English Language Learner program to Brophy, the transfer of the Two-Way program out of Brophy to Barbieri, and the introduction of ELT

Recommendations

Adopt the same space and transportation criteria to all new students entering the district. Currently elementary students are offered a choice of only the schools that can accommodate them but middle school students are assigned by street regardless of space capacity. Students who live within the 1.5-mile walk zone of a middle school would be assigned to that school to reduce potential transportation costs.

Improve and upgrade the Fuller facility and commit resources and funding to help the Fuller administration develop unique, school specific programs for the enrichment of students

Organize a series of focus groups and establish a dialogue with 5th grade families as soon as possible to discuss their ideas and concerns with the current Middle School program.

Establish a smaller middle school study group to specifically focus on resolving current middle school issues. Include middle school principals, teachers and families and request a report to the Superintendent early enough to make changes for the 2009-2010 school year.

Maintain the consolidation of middle school English Language Learner programs at Fuller because it is consistent with the High School model, has received educational awards, maximizes staffing, resources and is an efficient use of resources.

41

RESTRUCTURING OPTIONS Background: The Task Force was asked by the superintendent to think broadly and creatively about potential ways of reorganizing or restructuring the district. The ideas and concepts listed below are a brief overview. Each scenario could and should be explored more fully if the School Committee and Superintendent are interested in pursuing the ideas more fully. Some of these ideas involve a different way of looking at our facilities, some our programs and some look at radically restructuring the way we look at organizing our buildings. Task Force Analysis A number of subcommittees analyzed a series of potential restructuring ideas. They were broadly defined as: Alternative Assignment Structures

• Creating 3 zones in the district with 2 magnet schools • Grade structure changes • “Magnet” or “Focused” programs

Maximizing Facilities

• “Swapping” buildings in order to maximize building usage and capacity Program Re-Designs

• Creating 2 early childhood centers • Gender Based Schools

The subcommittees referred to the criteria, which have been used throughout the Task Force report as guidelines for the plausibility of each scenario. The majority of the other portions of the report have focused on “what is” this section should be considered the “what if” portion of the report.

1. Alternative Assignment Structures Create Three Zones and Two Magnets This plan looked at the possibility of creating three zones (dividing the district into three areas) with the following considerations:

1. Number of students relative to capacity of buildings within each zone 2. Proximity to schools in the zones 3. Diversity (ethnic, racial, cultural, socio-economic).

Each “zone” would have 2 assigned “neighborhood” schools in close proximity to an assigned middle school. 2 magnet schools would be open to anyone in the entire district. For example:

42

��Zone 1: Dunning and Hemenway (feeding into Walsh) ��Zone 2: McCarthy and Brophy (feeding into Fuller) ��Zone 3: Potter and Stapleton (feeding into Cameron) ��Magnets Barbieri and Wilson would be magnet schools, open for choice to anyone

in the district Entering K families would choose either a magnet or one of the two schools in the zone where they live. Families living within a certain distance would be guaranteed a seat in the schools. The district would assign students based on choice, capacity and diversity criteria. Pros 32.5% of the parents surveyed, expressed an interest in magnet schools. A wide variety of ideas were expressed; Math and Science Schools, Fine Arts Schools, elementary schools that focused on World Languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Italian and Spanish for example. This would allow the district to explore the development of some unique programs. One “magnet” the Two-Way Bilingual Program already exists and is highly selected by families in the community. Federal funding may be available through the US Office of Innovation and Improvement, which supports Federal Magnet schools. The Springfield Massachusetts Public Schools have a very extensive and well-developed program, which could be used as a model.

: In relation to creating middle school magnets, 23.6% said they would give a middle school magnet high priority if there were a choice program for that level. A magnet or focused middle school might retain families who might otherwise choose a charter or private school. When a student moves to a charter school, a portion of district funding follows the student. Cons Parent choices would be limited to each zone or magnet

• It is unclear if the zones would be flexible enough to avoid redistricting in response to population changes.

• Program placements would need to be reviewed. • Developing focused programs requires an investment in professional development, planning and

commitment

43


• This plan could limit transportation costs, however it would depend on where program services are located. Transportation may be required even under a zone model.

• Magnet school enrollment would need to be monitored closely to ensure that it meets the districts

goals

• While Special Education and English Language Learner programs would be placed to minimize transitions, it is possible that inclusion programs could be located in each zone

• One of the scenarios considered, as part of the middle school discussion was to leave feeders

intact but to devote additional resources to Fuller to assist them in developing a unique focused or magnet model. Fuller has invested time and effort in applying for the state’s Extended Learning Time grant. If the grant is not awarded it may be helpful to revisit the magnet idea for the future.

Grade Structure Changes Various grade structure changes were considered. a. K-1, 2-3, 4-5 schools The district’s elementary schools would be organized by grades. They would be grouped K and 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 4th and 5th. School choice would only include three schools in the K year, and then those three schools would feed into specific schools. For example:

• Parents choose from Stapleton, Wilson and McCarthy, all K-1st schools o Stapleton feeds to Barbieri, a 2-3rd grade school o Wilson feeds to Brophy, a 2-3rd grade school o McCarthy feeds to Potter, a 2-3rd grade school

��Barbieri feeds to Juniper Hill, a 4-5th grade school ��Brophy feeds to Dunning, a 4-5th grade school ��Potter feeds to Hemenway, a 4-5th grade school

Pros

• This keeps students together with a core group.

• It allows for flexibility in class sizes Cons

• It creates additional building transitions for students.

• Families with multiple children would find it more challenging, to get involved if they have several children in different schools.

44

• Transportation costs would increase because children could potentially come from anywhere in the district to attend their selected school.

Further Discussion Needed: This structure would allow some economy of scale but might require the opening of an additional school if programs cannot be accommodated This structure limits the ability of teachers to network across all grade levels, K-5. Differing building capacities could make the plan unrealistic. Placement of specialized programs would be difficult. b. Partnered Schools K-2, 3-5 A K-2 school would be partnered with a specific 3-5 school. Pros

• Students would travel as a cohort group • Schools that are geographically near each other could share resources and support. • Model would support an early childhood and primary focus

Cons

• Students would be transitioning every 3 years • Transportation costs may increase

Further Discussion Needed: Once again there is a question if the numbers would work for this scenario. Schools would have to be paired with schools of similar size, which is difficult to do. School choice would be among four schools. And then four 3-5 schools would feed into three middle schools which may require the splitting of one 3-5 school between Fuller and Walsh. c. K-4, 5-8 Schools Schools would be structured K through 4 and 5th through 8th. Pros

• This plan would alleviate space pressure in the elementary schools. Cons

• This brings the 5th graders into an older, more “middle school” setting.

45


• The plan could allow for two schools to feed to Cameron and three each to Walsh and Fuller.

• The recommendation would be for 2 person teams in the 5th and 6th grade and 4 person teams in the 7th and 8th grade.

• Walsh and Fuller would each be over 900 students, which is not recommended for this level.

Cameron would be around 700 students.

• This plan would have to be monitored for fluctuations in the feeder schools to protect from either over crowding of Fuller and Walsh or under utilization of Cameron.

• Adding a grade to Cameron does not actually fit in the design of the building. The school was

built with 3 modules to allow each grade to operate independently. d. K-8 Schools Either create one district K-8 school or move the entire district into a K-8 structure. Pros

• Educationally there are strong advantages for a K-8 school if done correctly. A successful K-8 school has both the strong parts of a middle school, such as small teams for the older grades, and strong parts of an elementary school.

• Fewer transitions are beneficial to some children, particularly children with special needs, for

whom change causes anxiety. • More opportunities for older children to be role models and act as mentors to younger students. • Extended time for building teacher/student and parent/school relationships, and perhaps

increasing parent involvement. • Potential for ‘school within a school’ – separate middle school wing within the same school. • Many districts are moving to this model or have had it for several years • More opportunities to continue outdoor recess in a K-8 setting • Could be designed as Grade 1-8 schools and combine with an Early Childhood Center for Pre-K-

K model Cons

• A restructuring of our current buildings, moving from K-5 to K-8, may be needed to accommodate this option.

• Unless the model is implemented in one of the larger middle school buildings, it would be a small K-8 school

• There are costs associated with this plan as the school would need to have the appropriate classrooms for this structure (i.e. science labs for middle school students).

• Wide disparity in ages • Young students in K would be on the same bus with older students • Different building sizes would require some to be larger or smaller than others • May delay acquisition of more responsible behaviors required in middle school. • Cost of renovations to accommodate the needs of children 5-14.

46

Further Discussion Needed: If we were to house one K-8 school and keep two middle schools the K-8 school would need to hold approximately 600 students. If we were to keep 3 middle schools and still have one K-8 school we would ease the numbers at Walsh but would impact numbers at Fuller and Cameron. B. Maximizing Facilities “Swapping” schools in order to maximize space This concept is about reassigning schools and programs to make the best use of existing building capacity. The goal is to look at facilities differently. For example:

1. Move Brophy entirely into Barbieri, creating more options for adding standard curriculum students because of added classroom space

2. Move the Barbieri 2Way program to Brophy or another facility that has a capacity for 24-25 classrooms

The Cambridge Public School system utilizes this model regularly. Schools are moved to maximize capacity allowing whole schools to pick up and move. The emphasis is on the school community rather than the physical building.

Pros

• If the Brophy program were in a different facility it could expand to accommodate potential requests for the ELT program and add standard students

• The Two-Way program requires 24-25 classrooms. Barbieri’s capacity is 30 classrooms. This

plan would maximize the use of buildings. Cons

• This may be in conflict with the neighborhood model. In the past, Framingham families have expressed an attachment to their physical buildings and may not respond as favorably as the Cambridge population does to this scenario.

• Moving students and programs to different buildings would have to be analyzed to be sure that

the move would result in efficiencies.

47

Further Discussion Needed: This could reduce some transportation costs as students are not bussed as far, but you could argue either way. For the scenario in the example, Barbieri classrooms may have to be reconfigured. There may be staffing implications. The new Barbieri could have more space for standard curriculum students (possibly adding a third standard K-5 group) This new standard strand would feed into Fuller. It allows for the current SPED students to be in a complete K-5 strand. A move such as this may require the district to establish an “expanded” residential preference that would include the current “home districts” of Brophy and Barbieri. C. Program Re-Designs Early Childhood Centers This option would create two early childhood centers for preschool and kindergarten classes. The Two-Way K classes would remain in the K-5 school because of the 2 Way program model. The district could also consider whether there is an educational value to be gained by leaving some Kindergartens in some schools, the ELT School for example. Children would be assigned to a specific center and begin the school choice process in 1st grade. This model could be implemented under either a home district model or a school choice model. At the present time, no building exists that can accommodate all Pre-K and K children in the district. There are approximately 650 new Kindergarteners each year in addition to approximately 300 preschool children in the district. The ideal would be to have two centers, one on each side of town.

48

Pros

• There would be a strong educational value to this plan. These centers would create a small school feeling and ease transition for preschoolers to the “big” schools.

• Centers would be better able to meet the developmental needs of the child and allow for

interaction among preschoolers and kindergarteners.

• This option would also allow the district to better handle the logistics of half-day and full-day programs.

• An early childhood center may also facilitate the placing of students in the appropriate SPED

programs, thus eliminating unnecessary changing of schools in a later grade.

• Cost efficiencies can be gained by consolidating sources and supports, particularly for special programs.

• This would delay the school choice decision until 1st grade. It may lead to a more informed

decision, as the teachers would know the children better, families could more easily be given opportunities to learn about the schools, and decisions could be made for a better “fit” for a learning environment.

• This scenario brings all students together, to make friends, and establishes relationships

communitywide.

• There are strong opportunities for outside funding for early childhood education right now. Cons

• The buildings used for an early childhood center may need to be modified for small children (although we do not currently do this for K classes).

• Current building usage would need to change if all Pre-K and K were located in the same

building. Re-configuring some of our current buildings would be needed if two centers were needed.

• This may increase transportation costs.

• K students would not have the opportunity to interact with the older students.

• Depending on the building used it may require additional administrative support and

49

Further Discussion Needed: While this plan allows for more space in the 1-5 schools, it is unclear if the district has space to adopt such a model. This plan may require the re-opening of Juniper Hill or the re-configuration of some of our present buildings There could be the potential for longer rides on the bus. SPED programs could be K-5 strands or 1-5. One possible option for phasing Early Childhood Center would be to re-open Juniper Hill by adding 2-4 kindergarten classrooms and 2-4 Pre-K classrooms. The 2 Way Bilingual kindergartens would remain in place at Barbieri, and the ELT kindergarten classrooms in could remain in place at Brophy. BLOCKS Preschool would be expanded to include Kindergarten classes. Administrative offices would have to be relocated to create space. There are 24 classrooms at King and 21 at Juniper Hill. Gender Based Schools Create elementary/middle schools based on gender. The Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools is currently proposing this type of school. Discussions are being held as to the legality of this option in Massachusetts.

50

DISTRICT CAPACITY

Background This section of the report will detail the current classroom and building capacity district wide and potential needs that are projected for the future. These issues will increase the need for building space:

• Increase in enrollment • Full Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten • Mandated Universal Pre-Kindergarten • Increase in Special Education Program needs • Increase in Preschool Special Education Needs • Development of Special Program Strands • Any fluctuations in the K-12 student populations, new housing or unpredictable immigration

trends Each school has re-configured or reclaimed spaces that are now used for instructional or support space. Most buildings are at capacity. The district must plan for expansion and be prepared to react proactively. The attached documents also outline the number of classrooms that will be needed by program if the district follows the recommendation of the task force to begin building program strands in schools. Current Buildings Used by the Framingham Public Schools Maynard: Central Administration Offices:

• Superintendent • Business Office • Human Resources • Payroll • Accounting • Curriculum • Title 1 • Fine Arts/health and Physical Education • Partners in Education • Psychological Services • School Committee • School Health Services • Special Education

Juniper Hill: Administrative Offices and Renters:

• Community Resource Development • Framingham Education Foundation • Equity and Achievement

51

Renters: • Metrowest Jewish Day school • Accept Transportation

King Building:

• BLOCKS Preschool • Family Support Programs

Parent Information Center McKinney Vento Safe and Supportive Schools Community Partnership for Children Parent Child Home Program

• Attendance Officer • Office of Technology • Office of Bilingual/Sheltered/ESL

School Buildings

School # Classrooms

BLOCKS/King 24

Barbieri 30

Brophy 26

Dunning 24

Hemenway 28

McCarthy 25

Potter 24

Stapleton 24

Woodrow Wilson 28

Fuller Middle School 24/42

Cameron Middle School 38

Walsh Middle School 47

52

Classrooms are defined as spaces that are appropriate as instructional space and can accommodate 25 students. Schools such as Fuller have a number of spaces, which are a smaller size and can accommodate less than 25 students.

Recommendations

• Additional space must be created at the King Building so that Blocks standard curriculum and special education classes can be added

• An updated survey of all school building spaces should be done so that school building floor

plans accurately reflect the changes, which have been made over the years.

58

SCHOOL CHOICE SURVEY RESULTS

Background On October 10, 2008 an internet-based School Choice Survey was posted in English, Spanish and Portuguese on Constant Contact (www.constantcontact.com) in an effort to solicit input from FPS families regarding their experiences with the school choice process over the past ten years. School Principals also made the survey available in hard copy for families that did not have Internet access. Overall Response Demographics The total number of families accessing the survey was 722 (n=722) out of a total number of 5500 families in the system. The overwhelming majority of respondents (76.2%) were White, with other races and ethnicities represented as follows: 4.9% Asian, 4.9% Brazilian, 3.1% Hispanic, 2.5% African American/Black, and 1.5% other. Most of the respondents (60.8%) reported that they had lived in Framingham for over ten years, while another 23.6% had lived in town for a period between six and ten years. Respondents who had first participated in School Choice with a kindergartener were in the great majority (81.8%), while 13.3% of the respondents comprised families who had first participated with a child entering one of the other elementary grades. Only 3.5% of the respondents had first participated with a middle school child. Hence, the data shows that the majority of respondents were white families with some longevity in Framingham and who had first experienced the School Choice program with a kindergarten child. Perceptions of Initial School Choice and Student Assignment Experience Families were asked a number of questions referring to their first experience with School Choice. Nearly 70% of the families reported that their child had been assigned to a “regular education” program, while 7.5% had been assigned to the Two-Way Bilingual Program. Very small percentages of respondents reported having had limited or no choice of programs due to their children’s having been assigned to Bilingual or Special Education programs. The majority of respondents (43.3%) reported that involvement in choosing their children’s schools was very important to them; 21.4% reported that it was an interesting opportunity in which they were happy to participate. Thirteen percent of the families claimed that parents should not have to choose their children’s schools and 6% felt that it was a difficult process because the schools appeared similar. Only 3% felt that the process was too much work for parents. Families were given a list of twenty factors that might have influenced their choice of schools (see survey) and asked to check all that applied. The top seven factors chosen were the principal’s leadership (11.3%), the school was located closest to the home (10%), recommendations from friends/family (9.1%), impressions derived from the kindergarten tour (8.7%), teachers and support staff (7.6%), reputation for academic achievement (7.0%) and tied for seventh place (6.2%) were availability of full day kindergarten and the school theme or unique programs. Other factors such as the availability of busing, student diversity, the middle school into which the elementary school would feed, MCAS scores and siblings in the same school were less significant (1.4% to 2.7%).

59

In conclusion, the data suggest that most families who responded to the survey had children in “regular education” programs, had considered it important or interesting to be involved in the School Choice program, and had chosen their schools largely based on the principal’s reputation, geographical proximity of the school to the home, and other factors relating to the reputation of the schools. Perceptions of School Choice and Student Assignment Today Respondents were asked to indicate if, given the chance to choose a school today, would they once again repeat their initial choice. The overwhelming majority (74.2%) agreed that they would choose the same schools, while a combined 19% stated that they would include other factors in their choice. Families were asked their opinions regarding the future of School Choice. Included in this subset of questions were two regarding Magnet Schools/Programs. The majority of families (43.3%) indicated that schools should offer identical programs while 32.5% would like to see magnet programs. Twenty-three percent of families reported that the existence of a magnet school would be a high priority in their choice of schools while a close 21.8% reported that the location of the magnet school would affect their decision. Close to 23% of respondents indicated that the existence of magnet schools would not affect their decision. In response to the question posed regarding how Framingham Public Schools should assign children to schools, the high majority (43.6%) reported that the schools should continue with the Choice program. Nearly 35% were of the opinion that the district should assign based on street address and should redistrict when necessary. As far as middle school assignment was concerned, close to half (45.1%) of respondents indicated that they were in favor of the present feeder system, while 23.8% wanted to see a middle school choice program. Slightly over 20% felt that the district should assign middle schools based on street address. Because the concept of a “neighborhood school” is nebulous, the survey asked families to define it. Slightly over 35% identified a neighborhood school as one that is attended by the majority of children in their area, while 32.6% regarded a neighborhood school as one that is within two miles of the home. Nearly 22% deemed a neighborhood school as being within a mile of the home. In summation, the majority of the respondents indicated satisfaction with their initial choice of schools as well as the belief that all elementary schools should offer the same programs. Equally, the majority of respondents claimed that they felt that Framingham Public Schools should continue with the Choice program. However, a significant number of respondents (over one-third) were in favor of assigning elementary schools based on street address and redistricting when necessary. This stood in contrast to the percentage of respondents (20%) who wished to see middle schools assigned based on street address, but this is probably because once assigned to an elementary school, the feeder system (endorsed by almost half of the respondents) ensures placement in a given middle school. The concept of a “neighborhood school” was not significantly defined by this survey.

60

Perceptions of Framingham Public Schools Most of the respondents (41.2%) rated the education provided to their children by Framingham Public Schools as excellent and a close 33% rated it as good. Only 7.4% of the respondents felt that their children’s education needed improvement. Families were also asked to specify the sources that they relied upon for information regarding schools. Most respondents (24%) claimed to rely on the school, itself, or the PTO, while 21.8% depended upon family, friends, and neighbors. A combined 26.5% indicated that they relied on the newspapers and the Internet. Almost 10% relied on the Parent Information Center. Religious, social and civic organizations and cable television were rated as the sources least used (slightly over 2% each). Conclusion The majority of families who answered the survey were White parents/guardians of elementary aged children in regular education or the Two-Way program, a popular elective program that children are assigned to by lottery. Only 7.6% of respondents indicated that they had limited or no experience with Choice. Although all members of the school community were invited to participate, the low incidence from these sectors was to be expected, since their choices are limited or non-existent. Their experience is important and the district should find a way to hear and address their concerns.

61

Transportation Subcommittee Report Over the ten years that School Choice has been in place, many people have looked at the busing and transportation costs. As these costs have risen over the past ten years, some have called for the end of the School Choice Program as a way to reduce transportation costs and, therefore, decrease the overall budget of the Framingham Public Schools. The transportation subcommittee of the Districtwide Task Force reviewed the transportation programs in the district, and looked for efficiencies and, consequently, ways to minimize costs. Every dollar that is spent on transportation is a dollar that is not spent directly on the education of students. Therefore, one goal of this Task Force could to be to reduce spending on transportation as much as possible, so the maximum amount of money can be returned to direct service of students. However, transportation helps us achieve economies of scale in other aspects of educational programming. For example, transportation costs would be lower if all students attended the school closest to their house. However, every school would then have to provide a variety of services – different models of Special Education delivery, and different models of bilingual/sheltered/ESL instruction. This would drastically increase the staffing costs, while providing the same level of educational services we have now. The two areas – transportation and staffing costs – act as a balance. When placing more students in nearby schools decreases transportation costs, staffing costs go up; when combining programs across schools reduces staffing costs, transportation costs are increased to get students there. We must find the appropriate balance between these two forces to maximize efficiency. Basic Facts about Transportation In the appendix, we have included the most important Massachusetts Laws related to school transportation. Here are a few important facts that will be referenced throughout this report. Schools for Transportation In addition to the 14 Framingham Public Schools (including BLOCKS Preschool and the Alternative High School), there are three parochial schools (St. Bridget’s, St. Tarcisius’, and Marian High School), one charter school (McAuliffe Regional Charter Public School), and four (4) other private schools (Summit Montessori, Wayland Academy, Metrowest Jewish Day School, and Sudbury Valley School). The Framingham Public Schools is required to provide transportation to any Framingham resident who attends any of these schools. Required Transportation For students who are in grades K-6, Massachusetts law requires that the district provide transportation if the student lives more than two (2) miles from his or her school. Any student who lives within two (2) miles of his or her school can be expected to walk to school. For students who are in grades 7-12, Massachusetts’s law does not require that districts provide transportation. In Framingham, the School Committee policy is to provide transportation in grades 1-5 to any student who lives more than 1 mile from his or her school. Kindergarten students who live more than 0.25 miles from their school are provided transportation. Students in grades 1-5 who live less than 1 mile from their school, as well as students in grades 7-12, can purchase a bus pass and receive bus transportation to and from school. This policy is applied to students who attend the Framingham Public Schools, the McAuliffe Regional Public Charter School, or any of the private/parochial schools in town. For 2008-2009, the bus fee is $270, with a family maximum of $540.

62

Residential Preference for School Choice Currently, the only “guarantee” for school choice is for siblings – if one child in a family attends a school, the child’s siblings are guaranteed a spot in that school. This is made to help families stay together at one school. Families who live within a half-mile of a school are given a “preference” for that school – once siblings are placed in a school, remaining seats are given first to those children who live within half-mile of the school. If there are more children than seats are available, a lottery is held with these students. Safe Walking Distances When a student is within the “walk zone” for a school, it is possible that the route a child would take is unsafe and, therefore, should be transported by bus. For example, Hastings Street is less than 1.5 miles from Fuller Middle School. Therefore, a sixth grader who lives on Hastings Street could be expected to walk to Fuller. However, this would require walking along Concord Street over route 9 – this is not considered a safe walking route, so a student in this situation would be provided bus transportation to Fuller. The police department, not the school department, determines whether or not a walking route is safe. If a crossing guard is needed, the position is funded and supervised by the police department. Changes Made in the 2008-2009 School Year The distribution of homes does not “match” the distribution of schools. The area south of Route 9 is more densely populated; yet, only 3 of the 8 elementary schools are in that area. Regardless of where students live, there is a bus that will take them to their own school. This could mean four buses go from one neighborhood on the southern end of town to the four schools on the northern end of town. We proposed that some of these bus runs could be consolidated – instead of four buses for one neighborhood, could there be one bus that stops at all four schools, or even two buses that each go to two schools? For the fall of 2008, this change was implemented. For some neighborhoods on the southern end of town, students who attend Hemenway and Dunning ride the same bus, with the bus stopping at Dunning first and then Hemenway. Likewise, students who attend Stapleton and Potter Road ride the same bus, with the bus going to Stapleton, then Potter Road. Similar adjustments were made in the transportation of private school students. For example, • Students who attend St. Tarcisius’ ride a bus with students who attend St. Bridget’s. The bus brings

students to St. Bridget’s, and then brings students to St. Tarcisius’. • Students who attend Marian High School take the regular buses to Framingham High School. Then, a

bus takes the students from FHS to Marian. • Students who attend McAuliffe take the regular buses to Fuller Middle School. Then, a bus takes the

students from Fuller to McAuliffe. • In the morning, students who attend Summit Montessori ride the same buses as students who attend

Brophy. In the afternoon, they ride the same buses as students who attend Hemenway. • In the morning, students who attend Wayland Academy ride the same buses as students who attend

BLOCKS. In the afternoon, they ride the same buses as students who attend Hemenway or Dunning. By making these adjustments in schedules, the district was able to reduce the bus fleet by 6 buses and save the district approximately $250,000.

63

Transportation Beyond Framingham Public Schools The 8,000 students who attend the 14 Framingham Public Schools represent only one category of transportation provided by the Framingham Public Schools. The other categories are: �� – Under the McKinney-Vento Act, homeless students have the option of attending their “school of origin”. This means that if a student who attends a school outside Framingham is placed in temporary housing in Framingham, he/she has the option of remaining in his/her original school. Likewise, a student of the Framingham Public Schools who is placed in temporary housing in another community may be transported to Framingham In either case, the Framingham Public Schools share the transportation costs with the other district. While many homeless children choose to attend a school in Framingham, some do choose to remain in their original school. In 2007-2008, there were 57 students transported under the McKinney-Vento Act, at a cost of $95,750. �� – There are some students who are placed in Special Education programs outside the district. While we are trying to build as many programs within the district as we can, there are some students with needs that cannot be met in the public schools. In addition to paying the tuition to these schools, we are required to transport students to these schools. Framingham Public Schools’ staff provides some of the transportation directly, while the Accept Collaborative provides other transportation. Payments for both types of transportation come from the Framingham Public Schools’ transportation budget. For the 2007-2008 school year, there were 190 students transported out of the district for special education programs, at a cost of $1,677,319. � �� – Under Massachusetts law, if a student wants to attend a vocational/occupational program that is not offered at Keefe Technical High School, we are required to pay tuition and provide transportation to a school that offers the desired program. For the 2007-2008 school year, there were 6 students transported to Norfolk Agricultural School, at a cost of $2,889. �� – Under Massachusetts law, all students who live in Framingham and attend a school in Framingham must receive the same transportation options, even if they attend a private school. This means Framingham Public Schools transportation department provides transportation for students who attend the 7 private schools in Framingham: St. Bridget’s, St. Tarcisius’, Summit Montessori, Wayland Academy, Marian High School, Sudbury Valley School and Metrowest Jewish Day School. For the 2007-2008 school year, there were 374 students transported to private schools. �� – Under Massachusetts law, students who live in Framingham and attend a charter school in Framingham must receive the same transportation options as students who attend one of the Framingham Public Schools. For the 2007-2008 school year, there were 112 students transported to McAuliffe Regional Charter School. This information is summarized in the table and chart, Distribution of Transportation Budget, in the appendix.

64

Transportation within Framingham Public Schools One could argue that the remaining portion of the budget – approximately $3.8 million – is the cost of the choice program. Throughout the earlier portions of this report, different scenarios were presented. In each scenario, we suggested the transportation implications for each scenario: if the district was organized in that way, what would be the potential changes to transportation and, accordingly, what would be the changes in costs? Here we will summarize some of the information regarding three scenarios: 1) everyone attends a school based on neighborhood assignment, 2) students are placed in Special Education and bilingual/sheltered/ESL programs, with other students assigned to schools based on neighborhood assignments, and 3) students are placed in Special Education and bilingual/sheltered/ESL programs, with other students able to choose their school. Current Guidelines for Elementary School Currently, there are 3,920 students enrolled in the 8 elementary schools. Under the current School Committee policy, any student who lives within 1 mile of a school can be asked to walk to school – bus transportation for these students is optional. There are 2,166 students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school. This means there are 1,754 students – or 45% of our elementary population – who will be transported by bus, whether there is School Choice or not. Of the 2,166 students who live within walking distance of a school, we wondered how many of them take a bus to a different school. These students – call them “potential walkers” – would not be transported if we didn’t have a School Choice program, but are now transported because they were able to choose a different school. Of the “potential walkers”, we first need to remove the “actual walkers” – those who walk to their home district school or another school1. Then, we must remove those students who attend a different school because of a program. This leaves us with students who could have walked to a school, but instead chose to take a bus to a different school. This analysis for the district is summarized in the table below; a school-by-school breakdown is included in the appendix.

�� ! �� "��#��$� ��#�

�� #�� %��

65

Number Percent of

district Percent of possible walkers

Students enrolled in the 8 elementary schools 3920

Students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school

2166 55%

Students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school and attend that school

809 21% 37%

Students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school and attend another school because of a special program

483 12% 22%

Students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school and walk to another school

76 2% 4%

Students who live within 1 mile of their “home district” school and choose to take a bus to another school2

798 20% 37%

To summarize, the 3,920 elementary students are broken down this way:

• 45% would be bused to any school under current School Committee guidelines, regardless of Student Assignment Plan

• 12% are bused because of a program • 23% walk to school or buy a bus pass • 20% are students who could have walked to one school but are transported to a different school. It

is important to keep in mind that some of these students are siblings of students in programs, or students who have exited a program and chose to stay in their original school. This number also includes students on the English side of the Two-Way.

Suggestions and Recommendations Below are some of the ideas we had as we reviewed this data. There are ramifications to each of these suggestions. Some of them even contradict each other. It is not meant to be new policies, but merely suggestions for other ways to look at the issues surrounding transportation within the Framingham Public Schools. 1. Change residential preference guidelines. The District is not required to provide transportation to a

student who lives within 1 mile of his/her school. Currently residential preference is given to students who live within half mile of a school. If the residential preference was increased to 1 mile, more of these students might be able to attend that school, thereby decreasing the number of riders to other schools.

&�$�� #�� '��

�� (��()*+�� )�� $� �, �#��

66

2. Additional category of bus fee. Any student who is offered residential preference at a school but

chooses to attend a different school could be asked to purchase a bus pass. This would help to offset the cost of the “unnecessary riders”.

3. Common bus stops, or “staging areas”. Rather than sending a bus into each neighborhood, have a bus drive around the perimeter of a neighborhood, and all students walk to that perimeter. For example, a bus could drive along Singletary Lane and pick up all students who live in the Woodcrest Acres neighborhood, rather than driving through the neighborhood and collecting students at more convenient stops.

4. Eliminate busing in grades 7-12. Busing costs an average of $481.50 per student. We charge a bus fee of $270 per student. This means that the district is spending $211.50 per student for students in grades 7-12. By eliminating these buses, we will save the district money while still following the requirements of the law.

5. Currently, School Committee policy is not consistent with the state law. The law requires that we provide transportation to any student who lives more than 2 miles from a school; we provide transportation to elementary students who live more than 1 mile from a school, and middle school students who live more than 1.5 miles from a school. If the walk zone were increased to 2 miles for both levels, there would be fewer students to transport.

67

Distribution of Transportation Budget FY 2009

Distribution of Transportation Budget FY2009

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "# ��$�

��%�� "� &�'�

��(��)�� *+$ #��

��,�� & ��+�

-��)�� #'"� ''�$�

��,. ��+*

/��0�� /��

��

�(��1��0��

,��(�/�� 2��&3�"' &�'�

��%�� 2�3�++3*�" &"�&�

�� !�� 2"#3+#� ��+�

�� 2&3''" ��

4��)��-��0)�� 2*3'�*3$&+ ��&�

��,. 2#3+$&3�'*

Percent of Overall Budget

Administrative Costs

3%

SPED Out of District29%

McKinney-Vento2%

Occupational Day0%

Within Framingham

66%

TOTAL0%

68

Distribution of Transported Students

FY 2009

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "# ��$�

��%�� "� &�'�

��(��)�� *+$ #��

��,�� & ��+�

-��)�� #'"� ''�$�

��,. ��+*

0%1% 3%6%

2%

88%

Occupational Day McKinney-VentoSPED Out of District Private SchoolsMcAuliffe FPS Schools

69

Percent of Overall Budget

Administrative Costs3%

SPED Out of District29%

McKinney-Vento2%

Occupational Day0%

Within Framingham66%

TOTAL0%

70

Students Within 1 Mile of Elementary Schools

��

��)��

��0��)��

��)��

5��6��

��)��)��

��

��)��)��

��(�5��)��

��7

��5��6��

7��

5��6��7

��5��6��

7��

5��6��

1,8 �++ *" &&� #& &"� '� $"�

18� �#" �+ $&� �� +� $'�

�9 &*+ �� $"� &� '� ' *� "* *"�

:%� &�� #�� * �� ' "� +* *#�

�// $$� �+$ *"� ��* &�� #$ *#�

�� "' �+ *$� ' $� *� �#� "* $+�

��, &#" "$ *�� #+ &&� &� '� '' *$�

4;. $'# �$� *�� &�$ $&� �*# &'�

��,. &��'�" *+� $'* &&� +� $� +"' *+�

71

45%

12%

23%

20%

Students who take a bus because the live more than 1 mile from school

Students who take a bus because of a program

Students who don't take a bus

Students who choose to take a bus rather than go to walking-distanceschool

��

��5)��6��

�)��(��)��

��)��

�+#$ $#�

��5)��6��

��0��$'* �&�

��5)��<��6�� ''# &*�

��5)��)��6�� )��)��0��5��6��0 ��

��)��

+"' &��

��,. *"&� ��

72

COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH

Introduction The Task Force’s Communication and Outreach (C&) committee performed three tasks:

1. Conducted a survey of district administrators about current communication practices and challenges in the district.

2. Conducted a survey of parents/guardians who participated in the School Choice program over the past ten years about their experience and satisfaction with this assignment model, and collected their suggestions looking forward.

3. Reviewed and updated communications recommendations from “Energizing Community Support,” one of the chapters in the district’s 1996 strategic planning report. Our recommendations pertain to communication practice and vehicles for distributing information to the school and at-large community.

Executive Summary C&O’s basic assumptions were:

• Communication is important to all district functions.

• Today, technology is the means to communication. It can eliminate redundancies and reduce costs, although an initial investment may be necessary.

• The district will identify an administrator to guide and implement a unified plan to address communication and outreach on a continuing basis

• A Director of Technology will be in place to implement, monitor and maintain suggested technologies

• Parent /guardian involvement is a major contributor to student success.

• The district website is the public face of the public education in Framingham. It can make or break credibility with all audiences and funders.

• District messages must be well thought out and presented consistently as we communicate across all grades and schools and departments.

• The District is already in the process of updating crisis response plans and technology to facilitate timely and improved contact with parents/guardians, the authorities and the media.

Findings from the Administrators/Principals Survey

In June 2008, C&O polled administrators and principals on how they communicated with students’ families. Responses indicated:

• A variety of methods were used, depending on the school, including email, telephone trees, face to face communication, PTO, and written communication.

• Email has become a primary vehicle but is limited because not all families provide work or personal email addresses.

• A systematic and improved process needs to be established to more frequently update contact information for emergencies.

73

Findings from the School Choice Survey Principals notified families that the district was seeking their input on their experience with the School Choice program. The School Choice Survey was made available in English, Spanish and Portuguese on Constant Contact (www.constantcontact.com) and principals could also provide paper surveys for families without access to the Internet. The total number of families accessing the survey was 734. Results and an analysis are presented in the Survey section of this report. Summaries of the survey results are included in this package, along with recommendations to update the “Energizing Community Support” chapter of the 1996 Strategic Plan. Recommendations for Communication in the District

I. Designate a responsibility center to proactively advocate, monitor, coordinate and implement communication with students’ families/guardians, staff, administrators, municipal officials, the community at large and the media. (Previously the part-time Director of Public Information (discontinued in 2002) focused on this area; subsequently the Assistant Superintendent oversaw some of these areas). This individual should:

a. Be a senior level administrator with:

i. District-wide perspective ii. Expertise in public relations or communication

iii. Access to all schools and departments iv. Time to dedicate to regularly attend to communication issues

b. Understand the potential value of technology and be able to work with the Director of Technology to implement communication measures

c. Establish a communication policy for the district d. Monitor and oversee website development, use and upgrades, working in partnership with the

Director of Technology e. Oversee the internal and external websites and webmaster(s) f. Create procedures for all schools and departments to use for official communication with

parents/guardians i. Improve collection of parent/guardian “Pink Card” emergency contact information

ii. Review and revise procedures to update “Pink Card “emergency contact information more frequently (including Cell phone, email). (The most frequent problem cited on a survey of Framingham principals was out of date contact information.)

iii. Work with the Director of Technology to facilitate use of centralized phone, email,

SMS and other technologies to reach parents/guardians during emergencies iv. Standardize and enforce use of consistent forms, schedules and parameters for

sending 1. Report cards 2. Failure notices 3. MCAS information and results 4. Other District information regarding programs, budget, etc. 5. New programs or program cuts

74

v. Ensure that parents and faculty/staff/administrators are well informed on crisis communication procedures, and regularly assess whether plans are current and suited to the district as it changes

g. Regularly take the pulse of the faculty and parent/guardian community on educational issues, utilizing on line and paper survey tools to reach all audiences, with and without access to technology

h. Review, evaluate and coordinate parent/guardian outreach on a regular basis i. Establish consistency in all written communication: letter head, taglines, website, and reports

i. Develop a “brand” tagline to be used consistently in all district and school based communication, for example, to the existing brand: “FPS, A District We Can Be Proud Of”

j. Be responsible for sending a consistent message to the public on controversial topics (proposals to build a school, lockdown of buildings, redistricting, School Choice, or budget cutting measures, for instance)

i. Prepare and distribute talking points or executive summaries to administrators, if necessary

k. Participate in the preparation of annual reports to municipal and state officials and the community at large

l. Participate in communication with Town Meeting m. Dispute and/or manage responses to misinformation from unofficial sources (websites)

reporting on our schools n. Utilize local cable, letters to the editor and website/email to provide context when school

issues are under discussion.

II. The district website should be professionally redesigned and better utilized for communications and public relations. It is the public face of the school system, and source of information for the parent community, community at large and local, state and federal governments that provide tax dollars to the schools. We recommend that the district:

a. Implement an immediate and professional redesign of the FPS website(s)

i. To be more user-friendly ii. To more readily find information

iii. To accommodate heavy traffic during peak periods such as school lockdown emergencies (crashed during recent incident)

iv. More fully develop the private/staff portion of the website (see Recommendation #3) v. Multi-lingual functionality (“click here for Spanish”)

b. Hire or contract or formally designate a skilled webmaster to monitor, manage and update the website and respond to problems identified by users

c. Standardize the design, format and policy for school based and department-based websites, including SPED, Bilingual, Partners in Education, etc.

d. Establish specific procedures for submitting, requesting and prioritizing adds to the website and/or “Home” page posting

e. Enforce privacy and security policies on the website f. Use the consistent “brand” of the district on the website g. Utilize the website to build internal community, engage the external community and

communicate more efficiently (saving on paper costs) i. Post student achievement, school activities and volunteer recognition

75

III. The district should redesign and expand use of the non-public/staff sector of the website to be more responsive and integral to the 21st century communication, collaboration and professional development needs of faculty members and staff, and to reduce meeting time and paper costs. Microsoft SharePoint is an example.

a. Designate, hire or contract a webmaster to ensure monitoring, management and updates of the staff/private website

b. Provide formal orientation on how to find and use resources and frequent refresher workshops for staff on using the website as a tool

c. Provide resources for new teachers, substitutes and new employee orientations d. Provide links to district and other professional development resources e. Provide access to centralized, on-line searchable catalog of curricula and other educational

materials f. Share curricula and syllabi across schools and grades g. Provide idea sharing: “chat” vehicle for teachers in different schools to communicate with

each other, i.e. Yahoo group h. Utilize the site for:

i. Calendar clearance and meeting management: individual, school and district calendars

ii. Report card preparation iii. Virtual meetings with peers iv. Human resources information (insurance, meetings) v. Job postings

vi. Staff recognition (newsletters) vii. Budget preparation

viii. Data collection for reports/state filings ix. Posting testing information MCAS x. Providing talking points on important issues

xi. Teacher recognition xii. An easy to use, regularly monitored suggestion “box”

xiii. Craig’s List- type school community exchange for wish lists and teacher-to-teacher sharing. (I.e. books, field trips etc.)

xiv. Recognition of contributions and achievements by teachers, staff and administrators i. Strengthen the Technology help desk by offering solutions on line j. Offer locally created and other tutorials and webinars (on line instruction) k. Go paperless by posting:

i. District policy manuals employee handbooks, core documents previously in print: manuals, crisis operations, telephone directories, syllabus, district goals, curriculum, etc.

ii. Business forms (filing for reimbursements, course credit, change of address, translations, billheads, etc.)

iii. Forms for news sharing (public relations) on the public part of the website

76

IV. Increase community support and parent/guardian involvement in education by communicating proactively and in response to concerns expressed by students’ families.

a. Work with PTOs and facilitate communication thorough Yahoo-like groups b. Utilize Town resources and website to distribute information

i. Tax bills ii. Public library displays, resources

iii. Bowditch field iv. Memorial Building v. Other public gathering areas such as Callahan Senior Center

c. Utilize community groups, faith-based groups and organizations such as Framingham Community Partners, Framingham Education Foundation for outreach.

d. Utilize Educational access television and school channel more i. For controlled message

ii. Reduce necessity for duplicate meetings, presentations iii. If necessary, use 3rd party websites to host large files for video uploads/link

e. Engage the community through: i. Volunteer programs

ii. Annual open house/tours for residents without children in the schools to increase understanding of what schools need to operate

iii. Use social networking tools such as Facebook and Linked In to communicate and reach out

iv. Showcase the schools at community events, for example, position a table at Concerts on the Common, ensure the presence of representative groups in Flag Day parade, to nurture pride in the schools and underscore that schools are an integral part of the community and a service to its residents

v. After hours rental of school facilities to community groups when feasible vi. After hours use of schools for community meetings when feasible

vii. Build alliances with other educational institutions in Framingham to collaborate, share ideas and foster mutual support

viii. Encourage the staff to regularly utilize all communication vehicles including email to facilitate communication.

1. Require faculty to use official FPS email, rather than personal email so that families can find them

f. Use community service projects (students and staff) to build and strengthen school-community bonds.

g. Reach out to non-English speaking parents/guardians, whether or not their children participate in English Language Learner Programs. Family support is a key to student success.

h. Post and/or distribute information and positive news articles about FPS. i. Identify and utilize the community’s talent pool for:

i. Partnerships ii. Mentoring

iii. Championing the schools iv. Problem solving

j. Provide supports and resources both on line and in the more traditional print and face-to-face formats to facilitate and increase involvement of parents/guardians in their child’s education.

77

V. Regularly evaluate and improve emergency communication procedures in the district with special attention to updating emergency contacts information.

a. Regularly review and update existing emergency protocol regarding parent notification and dismissal procedures

b. Communicate to parents that there is a standard operating procedure for emergencies and that teams have been identified to respond to the various classifications of emergencies

c. Utilize all available means of communication including phone chains, Nextel phones, staff cell phones, email and website

d. Establish standard procedures for collecting, updating and managing the accuracy of the “pink card,” emergency contact information

a. Insure that there is adequate collection of cell phone and email addresses e. Collect and enter data into the Student Information System (SIS) PRIOR to the opening of

school i. St. Bridget’s was able to contact parents during lockdown emergency in

September even though school opened only the previous day f. Ensure that updates in the SIS are integrated into whatever Alert system (being purchased and

implemented in Fall 2008) g. Multiple personnel in each building should be trained to access and utilize the SIS contact

information during emergencies h. Periodically test the emergency alert system and use it to verify and request updated current

information and request updated information i. Utilize cable “crawl” for notification of tests and during emergencies j. Utilize secure internal conference bridge to link key decision makers, principals and

administrators during emergencies in “real time” k. Utilize SMS blast (text message) technology to alert parents/guardians to critical information

during emergencies l. Improve internal communication tools to share information during emergencies and familiarize

staff with the tool m. Ensure that the email server can support heavy traffic and provide communication during

emergencies n. Implement measures to insure that the district website and email servers can operate and

withstand high demand that would occur in an emergency situation o. Continually review emergency communication procedures with police, fire and other emergency

responders p. Use the internal/ staff website to provide accurate information to staff without alarming students

during emergencies -- a clear unified message prevents panic and helps teachers prepare students for safety.

78

APPENDIX

1) Map of Framingham Public Schools

2) A Snapshot of the History of Change

3) Synopsis of Relevant Laws and Policies

4) Bilingual Enrollment by Year 1998 – 2009

5) Frequents Asked Questions about Special Education

6) Framingham Public Schools Racial Balance Policy - JEEC

7) District Data November 20, 2008 8) Middle School Options

80

Framingham Public Schools District Planning and Review Task Force

A Snapshot of the History of Change

1960 – 2007 1960-70’s The Framingham School System had 15 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 2

high schools and approximately 15,000 students enrolled district wide. Cameron, Farley and Barbieri all built around 1974. Maynard used as an elementary school until Brophy opened, and then closed.

June 1980 Roosevelt School closed. School Committee voted to return Roosevelt School to

the Town. School had been in operation from 1925-1980 as an elementary school. Feb 1983 Memorial School closed. Memorial had been operating as an elementary school

since 1958 and was closed mid year due to asbestos. Students were moved to Cameron Middle School, which had been previously closed. On May 10, 1983 the School Committee voted to permanently close Memorial and return it to the Town. Prior to it closing as an elementary school it had operated as a Junior High from 1921-1958.

Fall 1984 Barbieri becomes an elementary school. It had previously operated as a middle

school from 1974 to 1984. Fall 1987 School District cited for being racially unbalanced at Barbieri Elementary School Sept 1989 Alternative High School, Thayer Academy Opens April 1990 School Committee votes to merge Farley Middle Schools and Walsh Middle

School, effective 9/90. Student enrollment is approximately 1200. Sept 1990 School Committee votes to merge Framingham South & Framingham North to

become one high school: Framingham High School (Note: Annual Report cites Massachusetts’ economic crisis and explains that mergers were a viable option to reduce costs only made possible due to declining secondary school enrollment. It is a temporary step because in five or six years the middle school and high school will become overcrowded due to current primary enrollment. Framingham Annual Report 1990)

Sept 1991 Framingham High School opens as a result of merging North & South High

Schools 2/11/08 May 1992 District on site review by the DOE and Office of Civil Rights. Report cites some

areas needing improvement

81

June 1992 McCarthy Elementary School reconstruction begins with 60% reimbursement Oct 19,1993 School Committee votes that a second middle school is necessary. (Note: in the

annual report, it is noted that Walsh Middle School is the largest two-year middle school in Massachusetts. Middle School Task Force (then name changed to Middle School Advisory Council) recommended opening a second middle school. As a result of increasing enrollments, the district is developing new districts for elementary and middle schools. Framingham Annual Report 1993)

Spring 1994 Redistricting committee reviews elementary districts that would relieve

overcrowding at Barbieri and look at racial balance at Woodrow Wilson and Barbieri. Under the proposed plan, streets would be moved from the Barbieri district to Juniper Hill and McCarthy, Brophy district streets would be moved to Barbieri, Dunning district streets moved to Potter, McCarthy district streets moved to Barbieri and Stapleton, Stapleton district streets to Juniper, Wilson district streets to McCarthy resulting in the movement of approximately 450 students.

May 24, 1994 School Committee votes to accept Superintendent’s Elementary School

Redistricting Base Plan - Option 8 and votes to accept Superintendent’s Middle School Redistricting Plan No. 44 with the proviso that the general goal is to balance and provide parity for both middle schools with regard to TBE, ESL and SPED programs, subject to final School Committee approval. (Note: In the annual report, it is noted that the Redistricting Advisory Task Force, comprised of representatives from each school district, considered over 100 possible redistricting plans. Town Meeting voted funding to open of a second middle school. Framingham Annual Town Report 1994)

Fall 1994 Fuller Middle School opens - the district’s second middle school. Fall 1994 McCarthy Elementary School (Grades K-3) moves back into remodeled school;

Grades 4 and 5 move in at end of 1994. Fall/Spring 1995 Dr. Thayer presents Voluntary Long Range Educational Equity Plan to

community and school committee May 21, 1996 Framingham School Committee votes to adopt Long Range Voluntary Racial

Balance and Educational Equity Plan (Note: In the annual report, it is noted that the plan was approved by the State Board of Education in June (see date below), and the plan will address Framingham’s changing demographics and increasing enrollments through redistricting upon completion of the new Woodrow Wilson School, adoption of a limited choice plan, renovation of Cameron as a third middle school and the expansion of Framingham High School. As a result of the state-approved plan, Framingham is eligible to receive 90% state reimbursement for its school building program. Framingham Annual Report 1996)

June 18,1996 Framingham School Committee’s Long Range Voluntary Racial Balance and

Educational Equity Plan is approved by state Board of Education.

82

June 1996 Dr. Eugene Thayer retires after 9 years as Framingham Superintendent July 1996 Dr. Mark Smith begins as Framingham Superintendent Sept 1996 Year long planning begins for the implementation of a controlled school choice

program. Equity Committee is formed made up of parents, teachers, community members and administrators. DOE awards $25,000 for planning process under Chapter 636 funding for FY 97

Jan-Mar 1997 Equity Committee and administrators visit other school districts and programs.

White Plains, NY emerges as a model for Framingham because of comparable demographics and size.

April-June 1997 Superintendent presents Controlled Choice program to the community in a series

of community forums Aug 1997 Construction begins on new Woodrow Wilson School

Classrooms temporarily housed at King Building, while two modular units are leased to house King Administration Building staff Administrators and Principals meet to identify potential program choices that will be used to develop a community survey

Sept-Dec 1997 Community Survey distributed, school identities established, $25,000 awarded by DOE for implementation of choice plan FY 98

Oct 1997 Redistricting Task Force (parents & community members) meet in fall to prepare

base redistricting recommendations for Administration prior to be implemented concurrent with the beginning of choice program in Sept 1998

Dec 16,1997 School Committee issues statement to “reaffirm its plan to achieve racial balance

in its nine elementary schools as defined in Policy JECC and to maintain that balance through the implementation of a School Choice Program in September 1998.” (Note: In the annual report, it is noted that the School Committee approved a school choice manual to be used in assignment of students beginning in 1998. Framingham Annual Report 1998.)

Jan 1998 School Committee reviews and approves “school identities,” established by each elementary school to enrich the curriculum and focus on school wide themes

Feb 1998 Parent Information Center opens February 1998 School Committee approves redistricting plan, developed by 22-member

redistricting committee. (In the annual report, it is noted that the racial balance plan was designed to ensure that student enrollment in every elementary school is racially balanced to reflect Framingham’s racial enrollment, as mandated by state law. Also noted, that the Plan would ease overcrowding in Barbieri, Potter Road

83

and McCarthy. (Note: Framingham Annual Report 1998) Students would be transferred from the following districts; Barbieri to Potter, Barbieri to Wilson, McCarthy to Potter, Juniper to Wilson, McCarthy to Wilson, resulting in the movement of approximately 300 students.

Mar 9-Apr 30 1998 First K class under controlled choice register for September 1998. May 15,1998 K School Choice Assignments for Sept 1998 mailed to parents, 98% receive first

choice. 688 students registered Sept 1998 Woodrow Wilson Renovation Completed – School opens, first class of

Kindergarten choice students begin, redistricting plan implemented, DOE awards Chapter 636 funds: $100,00 under Section 1 and $50,000 under Section 2 for FY 99. Funds were given to support Parent Information Center and to support schools as they continue developing school identities. Full day kindergarten available at Woodrow Wilson and Barbieri 2-Way program

Feb 1999-Mar 1999 Second K class registers for Sept. 1999. 96% receive first choice, 650 students

registered April 1999 First group of elementary transfers approved Sept 1999 Construction begins on Cameron Middle School with 90% reimbursement

Second class of Kindergarten choice students begins. DOE awards Chapter 636 funds $100,000/Section 1 and $50,000/Section 8 for FY 00

December 1999 School Committee voted controlled school choice plan for middle schools.

(According to the annual report, beginning in 2000/2001 school year, elementary students will be assigned to the middle schools as follows: Potter, Stapleton, Woodrow Wilson, half of Portuguese TBE program, ESL program to Cameron; Brophy, Juniper Hill, McCarthy, half of Portuguese TBE Program, entire Spanish TBE program to Fuller; Barbieri, Hemenway, Dunning, Two-Way Spanish Program to Walsh. The district strives to ensure that each of nine elementary schools fall within 10% of district goal of 70% majority and 30% minority enrollment. In October 1999, eight of nine schools met guideline. Framingham Annual Report 1999)

Feb1-Mar 2000 Third K class registered for Sept 2000. 91% receive first choice, 640 students

register April 2000 Framingham High School Debt Exclusion voted August 2000 Governor eliminates all Chapter 636 funding. Framingham was scheduled to

receive an increase of $50,000 in Section 1 funds.

84

Sept 2000 Cameron opens to Grade 6 only. (By September 2002, all three grades will be incorporated.) Three Middle schools now operate in Framingham, Walsh, Fuller and Cameron.

Jan 2001 A portion of Chapter 636 funds are restored to Framingham after intensive

lobbying $100,000/Section 1 and $105,000/Section 8 Spring 2001 Fourth K class registered for Sept 2001, 91% receive first choice, 720 students

register Nov 2001 DOE eliminates all Chapter 636 funding. District commits to maintaining Parent

Information Center Spring 2002 Fifth K class registered for Sept 2002, 91% receive first choice, 646 students

register June 2002 FY 03 Budget Override voted Sept 2002 Framingham Community Charter School opens for grade 6 Spring 2003 Sixth K class registered for Sept 2003, 92% receive first choice, 615 students

register May 2003 School Committee votes to close Juniper Hill School, Implement full day

kindergarten tuition, bus fee, athletic fee and activity fees in response to budget deficit for the 2003-2004 school year. Full and half-day programs available in all schools

June 2003 Juniper Hill Elementary closed. Students reassigned to other schools in the

district. Juniper strand of Bilingual program moved to Brophy. Phasing out of Brophy Two-Way program begins; strand will be moved entirely into Barbieri. Portuguese TBE and ESL program moved from Cameron to Fuller to maximize staffing and resources. Elementary feeder schools to

each middle school remain the same with the exception that Juniper will no longer feed to Fuller. Plan is to review feeders in the next year.

June 2003 Dr. Mark Smith retires after 7 years as Framingham Superintendent July 2003 Dr. Christopher Martes begins Spring 2004 Seventh K class registered for Sept 2004, 636 students register. 92% receive first

choice Spring 2005 Eighth K class registered for Sept 2005, 627 students register. 91% receive first

choice

85

Spring 2006 Ninth K class registered for Sept 2006, 625 students register, 93% receive first choice

Spring 2007 Tenth K class registered for Sept 2007, 602 students register, 94% receive first

choice June 2007 Dr Martes resigns after 4 years as Framingham Superintendent July 2007 Dr. Thayer returns as Interim Superintendent Jan 2007 Expanded Learning Time grant awarded for Brophy Elementary and Cameron

Middle School Feb 11, 2008 District Planning and Review Task Force Begins;

K registration for the class of Sept 2009 begins, 600 students are pre-registered

86

Synopsis of Relevant Laws and Policies

Federal Laws: Federal Special Education Regulations: 34 CFR Part 300; Federal Statute 20 USC 1400 et seq Title VI: Title VI of the Office of Civil Rights Act of 1964

EEOA: the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 NCLB: the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Title 1: Title I Part A

Title VII: Subtitle B of the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq June 28, 2007 Supreme Court Decisions: Parents Involved in Community Schools V. Seattle School District Meredith V. Jefferson County Board Of Education Massachusetts Laws (M.G.L. refers to Massachusetts General Laws) M.G.L. c.69:

Established the powers and duties of Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and to establish the MCAS testing program

M.G.L. c.71 Section 68: Duties of towns to maintain schools, transportation of children, school building committee representatives

M.G.L. c.71 Section 1: Regulation of School Attendance; Private School Transportation

M.G.L c.71: Governs public schools and requires ever district to adopt and implement a curriculum and accommodation plan

M.G.L. c.71a: Governs the education of English Language Learners

M.G.L. c.71b: Governs the education of children with special needs

M.G.L. c.76: Governs school attendance

87

Framingham Policies Policy AC-1

Non-Discrimination Policy EEA

Student Transportation include mileage requirements Policy EEAB Transportation to Non-Public Schools Policy IC and Policy ID

School Year Policy IE

Organization of Instruction Policy IGBF

Bilingual, ESL & Sheltered English Programs Policy IHB

Class Size Policy JECB

Admission of Non-Resident Students Policy JEC

School Admissions Policy JECC

Racial Balance: Assignment of Students to Schools with FPS Mission Statement

90

M.G.L. – Chapter 71, Section 89

TOTAL NUMBER OF BILINGUAL & ESL STUDENTS BY SCHOOL YEAR 1998-99

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

1,144 1,342 1,530 1,479 1,407 1.204 1.216 1,275 1,224 1,201 1,200

TOTAL NUMBER OF BILINGUAL STUDENTS BY SCHOOL AND PROGRAM - ELEMENTARY

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Barbieri 2Way E-137 2Way S-122

Barbieri 2Way E-135 2Way S-123


Barbieri 2Way E-124 2Way S-136 Int. ESL - 5






Barbieri 2Way E - 207 2Way S – 207 Int. ESL – 1


Brophy 2Way E-22K 2Way S-21K TBE S-114

Brophy 2WayE-22K/1 2WayS-22K/1 TBE S-83

Brophy 2WayE-66K-2 2WayS-65K-2 TBE S-65

Brophy 2WayE-84K-3 2WayS-85K-3 TBE S-37

Brophy 2WayE- 96K-4 2WayS-102K-4 TBE S-17

Brophy 2WayE-42 2+3 2WayS-32 2+3 BIL S - 64 SHE S - 64

Brophy 2WayE-21 - 3 2WayS-11 - 3 BIL S - 65 SHE S – 57

Brophy BIL S - 54 SHE S - 59




Dunning ESL-91

Dunning ESL-101

Dunning ESL-109

Dunning ESL-93

Dunning ESL-72

Dunning ESL-54

Dunning ESL – 54 Int. ESL - 26

Dunning ESL-55 Int. ESL-26

Dunning ESL-50 Int. ESL - 23

Dunning ESL-44 Int. ESL - 19

Dunning ESL-53 Int. ESL – 15

Hemenway K TBE S-6

Hemenway 1-5 TBE S-38 1-5

Hemenway 1-5 TBE S- 51

Hemenway 2-5 TBE S- 40

Hemenway 3+5 TBE S- 20

Juniper TBE S-122

Juniper TBE S-108

Juniper TBE S-109

Juniper TBE S-110

Juniper TBE S-114

McCarthy K ESL – 32

McCarthy K/1 ESL – 52

McCarthy K-2 ESL – 38

Potter TBE P-109

Potter TBE P-183

Potter TBE P-234

Potter TBE P-242

Potter TBE P- 199

Potter BIL P- 100 SHE S - 82



Potter BIL P- 107 SHE S–18 1+3

Potter BIL P- 95 SHE S – 11 K

Potter BIL P- 74 SHE S-24K+1

Wilson TBE P-125

Wilson TBE P-130

Wilson TBE P-152

Wilson TBE P-143

Wilson TBE P- 160

Wilson BIL P- 64 SHE P - 90





Wilson BIL P- 109 SHE P – 138

TOTAL NUMBER OF BILINGUAL STUDENTS BY SCHOOL AND PROGRAM – Middle & High School

1998-99

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Cameron -6 TBE P- 22 ESL – 19 Total: 41

Cameron –6/7 TBE P- 42 ESL – 36 Total: 78

Cameron –6-8 TBE P- 32 ESL – 57 Total: 89

Fuller TBE/ESL-199

Fuller TBE/ESL-235

Fuller TBE S/P - 239 ESL- 14

Fuller TBE S/P - 178 ESL- 6

Fuller TBE S/P - 165

Fuller BIL S - 22 BIL P - 39 SHE S - 62 SHE P - 62 ESL – 20 Total: 205






Walsh TBE-S - 38

Walsh TBE-S - 62

Walsh 2Way E- 54 2Way S- 42









FHS TBE/ESL-147

FHS TBE/ESL-167

FHS 2Way E - 20 2Way S - 20 TBE S/P - 185 ESL – 23 Total: 228



FHS 2Way E- 41 2Way S- 25 BIL S – 11 BIL P - 18 SHE S - 16 SHE P - 54 ESL – 23 Total: 147

FHS 2Way E- 44 2Way S- 16 BIL S - 18 BIL P - 25 SHE S - 21 SHE P - 68 ESL – 34 Total: 182





93

Frequently Asked Questions About Special Education Q: What is Early Intervention? A: Early Intervention is a program operated by the Department of Public Health serving young

children ages 0-3. The primary purpose is to provide support to families and their children who are considered to be “at risk” of developing at the same rate as their peers. It is more of a medical model and is federally mandated. Increased numbers of children born prematurely with significant disabilities and children with autism are entering Early Intervention.

Q: What is IDEIA? A: IDEIA is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, the federal special

education law. IDEIA was passed by congress in 1975, implemented in 1978. Q: What ages must a school district serve children and youth with disabilities? A: Ages 3 through 22. Q: What is the federal funding contribution towards supporting states’ implementation for

special education services to children and youth with disabilities? A: Presently, Congress appropriates 17.1% towards the costs of special education. Congress is

authorized to appropriate 40%. Q: What is Circuit Breaker? A: Circuit Breaker, passed in 2003, and implemented in 2005, provides direct financial relief to

Massachusetts cities and towns towards the costs of special education. The reimbursement is earmarked to the school departments. Elements of the circuit breaker are as follows:

• Reimbursement is based upon prior year’s costs for in district and out of district placements

• Reimbursement based upon 75% of 4x state average per pupil costs o For example: Any costs for FY 08 over $33,700 are reimbursed at 75%

subject to appropriation (FY 07 $33,380) • If student is placed in a private special education program mid-year, only that cost

is considered reimbursement not the annual tuition cost • Extraordinary Relief – A school district may apply for extraordinary relief if

expenses exceed 125% of the prior fiscal year. Framingham would have to spend nearly $2 million more than the previous year to qualify for extraordinary relief.

• There is legislation pending to change the circuit breaker formula to be more favorable to cities and towns.

Q: Who is responsible for the costs of a student when a family moves to another town in Massachusetts? A: If a student with an IEP moves from one Massachusetts school district to another during the school year, the receiving school district must immediately implement that IEP. A school district is obliged to provide a comparable program. For example, if a student was in a collaborative program, the school district may offer a comparable in-district program.

94

Q: What is the Move-In Law? A:

• If a student from another city or town in Massachusetts, and who is in an out-of-district special education day or residential school placement (not a collaborative placement), moves to Framingham prior to April 1, the former school district is obliged to pay for tuition costs of the out of district placement through the end of the current fiscal year.

Framingham starts to pay the tuition costs the next fiscal year. In addition, the former school district is obliged to pay for the transportation costs up to the amount they were paying prior to the move.

• If the student moves to Framingham on or after April 1, the former school district is obliged to pay the tuition costs of the out of district placement through the end of the current fiscal year and the following fiscal year.

Q: What is ABA? A: ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) is a research based methodology used in serving children with autism, particularly in their early years of development. Using data collection, it focuses on observable/measurable behaviors of the child in implementing changes to the teaching environment and the student’s behavior. ABA must be delivered by specially trained therapists. Supervision is provided by Master’s level supervisors. Q: What is Framingham’s per pupil expenditures? A: District State 1999 2005 1999 2005 Regular Education $6,462 $10,239 $5,487 $7,421 Special Education $10,669 $14,485 $10,249 $14,643 Q: How does a student become eligible for special education? A: See attached.

95

RACIAL BALANCE POLICY: ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS

96

School Year 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Option 1: Feeders Remain # of students enrolled % of standard curriculum students Cameron 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller 537 606 685 58% 56% 55%Walsh 780 776 742 81% 80% 79% 1823 1892 1939 Option 2: Feed Stapleton to Fuller instead of Cameron Cameron no Stapleton 437 379 325 89% 88% 88%Fuller with Stapleton 606 737 872 61% 61% 61%Walsh the same 780 776 742 80% 78% 73% Option 3: Feed Hemenway to Fuller instead of Walsh Cameron the same 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller With Hemenway 626 784 956 62% 63% 65%Walsh no Hemenway 691 598 471 80% 78% 73% Option 4: Feed Dunning to Fuller instead of Walsh Cameron the same 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller with Dunning 611 755 905 63% 65% 66%Walsh without Dunning 706 627 522 79% 76% 70% Option 5: Feed Hemenway to Fuller and Brophy to Walsh Cameron the same 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller with Hem and no Brophy 567 674 800 59% 58% 58%Walsh with Brophy and no Hem 750 708 627 82% 82% 79% Option 6: Move Gr.5 into Fuller from Bro and McCarthy Cameron the same 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller with Gr 5 McC and Bro 721 788 889 61% 59% 57%Walsh the same 780 776 742 80% 78% 73% Option 7: Move Gr 5 from McCarthy to Fuller Cameron the same 506 510 512 88% 86% 87%Fuller with Gr 5 Mc 641 718 816 61% 58% 56%Walsh the same 780 776 742 80% 78% 73% Option 8: Close Cameron/2 Middle schools Fuller and Walsh Cameron Closed or Move Stapleton into Cameron 0 0 0 Fuller (feeders Brophy/McCarthy/Hem/Wilson Walsh(feeders Dunning/Stapleton/Potter/Barbeiri 2way)

97

Option 9: Assign students to middle school based on street Each Middle school would be between 500-600 Option 10: Return Gr 6 to Elementary schools, create 7 and 8 Comments: Option 1: Numbers begin to even out but % of standard at Fuller remains low Option 2: Fuller % standard goes up but Cameron is too small Option 3: Fuller numbers are too big after 3 years and Walsh is too small Option 4: Fuller larger than Walsh or Cameron after three years, Dunning located behind Walsh, students who were walkers would now be bussed, Siblings would reduce number moving to Fuller Option 5: Fuller % standard is not that different from option 1, there are 33 possible walkers to Walsh in grades 4 and 5 at Hemenway, They would now be bussed There are 10 siblings in grades 4 and grade 5 who would be joining siblings at Walsh instead of moving to Fuller Option 6: LD classes would have to move too, do not feed to Fuller right now,DD classes would have to move to Hem, proj unstable since looking at gr 2 in 2011 Option 7: 5th LD classes would need to move twice, would open room for complete strand of LD at lower grades Option 8: Both Middle schools would be @ to 800-900. Disruption districtwide. Walkers to Cameron would be bused Option9: Open Cameron as an elementary school, fill with students dsitrictwide, two large middle schools Option 10: Could only do this if there is a 9th elementary or Early Childhood centers to make space for grade 6

Framingham Public Schools - Wicked Localmedia.wickedlocal.com/pdf/FRAtaskforce.pdf · Cheryl Caira...

Documents

Transcript of Framingham Public Schools - Wicked Localmedia.wickedlocal.com/pdf/FRAtaskforce.pdf · Cheryl Caira...