BCS Has A New Superintendant Of Schools

by Thaddeus Flint
The search for a new Superintendent of Schools for the Berlin School District has come to a successful conclusion. School Board President Gina Goodermote announced at the monthly School Board meeting on Tuesday that as of August 26, Dr. Stephen M. Young will be permanently filling that position.
Young, recently an Interim District Administrator at Lindenhurst Public Schools, was on hand and graciously accepted the Board’s decision. “It’s been a long arduous climb,” he said. Not just for him, but for the Board and the District as well. Young now brings his years of experience from the Bronx and Long Island to Berlin. Young was educated at Manhattan College, Fordham University and the College of New Rochelle. He has previously worked teaching at Grover Cleveland High School in Queens, Intermediate School 116 of the Bronx, The Bronx High School of Science (considered one of the top science magnet schools in the United States) and Benjamin N. Cardozo High School in Bayside, Queens. From there he went on to the Blind Brook Rye Union Free School District in Rye Brook where he was a Director of Curriculum and Instruction for two years before moving on to Lindenhurst.
Goodermote thanked Board Member Bev Stewart and departed Board Member Liz Miller for all their efforts on a search that at times seemed endless. “They really did all the work,” said Goodermote.
Substitute Teacher Rates
Some of the agenda items that night were tabled until the September Board meeting so as to allow Young to begin work, come up to speed with the pressing needs of the District and be consulted as to his views. One item that was discussed in the meantime was the current rate for substitute teachers. Stewart made the point that there will be two substitutes at Berlin this coming year who will be making $208 a day for their services. There are no benefits with this salary. This rate is special as these are long term positions for maternity leaves which will be months in duration. The normal rate is $85 a day.
Stewart found the long term rate too high. “It seems like a lot of money to spend,” she said, especially with so many teachers out of work and needing jobs. Board Member John Nash agreed and pointed out that the higher rate had originally been negotiated for a specialized position. “I didn’t think that was established as standard rate for long term substitutes,” he said. Board Member Alan Webster also found the rate too high for the cash strapped District. He felt that substitutes should be started out at a lower amount and then re-evaluated after, say, 20 days. “This would give us some flexibility,” he said. Board Member Frank Zwack pointed out that the rate is actually not out of line for a starting salary. His point was backed up by the Elementary School Principal Michelle Colvin who explained that these long term substitutes are not just baby sitters but almost members of the faculty whose scope of work is often equal to that of a full time teacher. Board Member Jim Willis asked, “Do we have a choice?” Stewart responded, “We always have a choice.” A vote to keep the current rate of $208.35 was taken and passed with Goodermote, Zwack, Jim Willis and Rachel Finney for and Stewart, Nash and Webster against.
Professional Development
The current Professional Development Plan was also debated. This allows teachers to continually update their skills through higher education and teaching programs with costs paid by the District. Nash felt that professionals should be doing this at their own expense. “It can add up to a significant amount of money,” said Nash, who wants the District to be more “fiscally responsible” at a time when the District might even find itself in a shortfall of funds come the end of the year. Willis disagreed, seeing it as a program whose funds are well spent. “I want the teachers on the cutting edge,” he said, “I don’t want someone who graduated 20 years ago and who has been teaching the same things ever since then.” Zwack sided with Willis. “It betters the teachers and then betters the students,” he said. Zwack pointed out that the matter was largely contractual anyway. A vote on the matter passed, with only Nash and Webster against.
Buildings And Grounds
Goodermote then made a point of praising District Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds Cyril Grant for his team’s work this summer in getting the elementary school building safe and ready for the students this fall. Grant’s team has encapsulated the pillars of the building as well as worked on the entrance to the school. This should help control some of the flaking lead paint at that location until a long term solution can be arrived at.
This building, as well as the high school building, were then discussed in regard to a $100,000 capital project. This project would spend that amount on updating one of these sites, the State reimbursing the District for 75% of the costs once the project was completed. Grant presented two options. If the elementary school was chosen, $30,000 would be spent on emergency lighting, $10,000 on updating the smoke detection system and $45,000 repairing and stabilizing the masonry of the exterior walls of one of the building’s parapets. An additional $15,000 would go towards architectural costs. If the funds were utilized at the high school, $10,000 would go towards updating the fire alarm system, $20,000 toward emergency lighting and smoke detection equipment, $40,000 toward replacing an obsolete intercom system, $15,000 toward updating door hardware and the remaining $15,000 would go towards architectural fees.
All agreed that both projects were important. Nash however wanted to table the discussion until next month so Dr. Young could be involved, but this turned out to be impossible. If a capital project were to take place this fiscal year a decision had to be made at the meeting. Grant also explained that the State Department of Education was adamant that the safety problems at the elementary school be done first. A vote was taken and the decision to use the funds at the elementary school was passed with only Webster abstaining. The matter will now go to the voters as a referendum.
In his Legislative Liaison report Nash informed the Board that the State was lifting its mandate on busing of pupils. The District would have more room now to form its decisions on which students were to be provided with transportation. “This could have a significant impact on the amount of money we have to spend,” he said. The Federal Government is also now allowing waivers to the No Child Left Behind law. Many States have found the law dysfunctional and its requirements unrealistic. Vermont was one state for example, Nash explained, that was already pursuing a waiver. Nash said New York might also look for a waiver. “Lobbying our elected officials would be in the best interest of the State, and, in turn, our District as well,” he said.
LAC Attacked
The Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) then came under attack by Goodermote. She had requested a list of members of that committee and found that it did not meet guidelines set forth by the Board as to having members from not only a “broad cross section” of the communities that make up the District, but teachers and administrators from the District as well. Apparently there are no administrators or staff on the Committee and only three members from Grafton, two from Berlin and one from Stephentown. Goodermote wanted to immediately suspend the Committee. “I’m going to vote against anything of the LAC until they have all their members,” she added.
The LAC is currently tasked with the Herculean task of getting a consensus of the District as to the future footprint of the schools, two of which sit expensively vacant while students are arduously bused right past them to one containing lead based paint.  A survey they sent out to some parents strangely yielded a minute response rate from a District where everyone seems to have an opinion as to what its future should look like. Few seemed to want to put these opinions on paper. It was thought that maybe the mailing label affixed to the survey could have turned off those who wanted their opinions to be anonymous. “People just took it and heaved it,” said Zwack. Unfortunately LAC spokesman Atsushi Akera was unable to attend the meeting that night and could not refute Goodermote’s claims or enlighten the Board as to why there were so few volunteers on the Committee.
There could be some truth to the saying that “those who volunteer are those who didn’t understand the question.” Perhaps most did understand the question and didn’t want to provide their valuable time on a committee that has long been ignored by their Board. At any rate, Stewart felt it would be “rude” to go so far as to suspend a committee that has already spent endless hours on such a thankless project, without at least hearing Akera’s side of the story. Willis proposed that the discussion be tabled until next month when, it is hoped, Akera could be on hand to provide answers. In the mean time Young would be on the job and able to look over the new proposed survey, meet with the Committee, and add his viewpoints as well.
The other Board members were in favor of waiting another month and getting the input of Young. Goodermote, in the end, conceded that this was probably a good idea as well, and the current LAC survives at least one more month.