1. Public Comment
- Anne Coburn
- Isabella Ehrlich
- Katherine Stevenson
- Christopher Montero
- George Sarrinkiolaou
- Jess Goetz
2. Student School Committee Report
None — the student reps weren’t able to join tonight.
3. Presentation of the Records for Approval
- January 6, 2026, Regular Meeting
- January 14, 2026, Special Meeting
- January 16, 2026, Special Meeting (Retreat)
- January 20, 2026, Regular Meeting
- January 22, 2026, Special Meeting
Passed.
4. Reconsiderations
None.
5. Unfinished Business/Calendar
None.
6. Awaiting Reports
None.
7. Superintendent’s Agenda
7a. Superintendent’s Update
The Superintendent will provide an update on pending matters and highlight various initiatives taking place across the Cambridge Public Schools. The superintendent will provide a brief summary of the work being done to prepare various reports requested by the school committee including an update on the analysis of screen time and technology usage by students in the Cambridge Public Schools derived from School Committee Order 25-300 approved on December 2, 2025.
Three announcements:
- Fabiani (a social studies teacher at the King Open) [AMC note: I definitely misspelled this teacher’s name] won an award.
- In light of national events, we’re reinforcing ways to support kids in all forms of their identities.
- Screen time report update – Murphy’s confident that they’ll be able to present this report in a timely fashion. He suggests that this subject is appropriate for the curriculum subcommittee for the community and staff to provide input, and they’ll be convening a series of focus groups across the district with front-line educators. They’re looking at ways to analyze the use of CPSD technology (using IP addresses to confirm the amount of use during the school day) and to ensure that they’re defining the scope of the reports (those will be surfaced in the upcoming focus groups). This is an ongoing and difficult conversation – a topic and concern that’s shared by many, especially in regards to AI.
Key takeaways: expect two distinct two week window blocks for focus groups and dipstick data analysis; Murphy also requested the use of the curriculum subcommittee as a public forum.
7a. Discussion: Superintendent’s Update
VICE CHAIR DUBE: Agrees that the curriculum and achievement subcommittee is the place to have this conversation. Appreciates that this will involve a cost benefit analysis of positives and negatives.
Murphy: The fact that the conversation is coming up at all is very positive. He appreciates the opportunity to focus on this work, and believes that the outcome will be nuanced with a lot of variability across grade levels.
WEINSTEIN: Agrees, thinks that technology can be positive for kids with disabilities and possibly negative for others.
SANTOS: Will this report be documenting only or will it forward policy goals?
Murphy: We’ll have to define it as technology usage during school (including Youtube for movement breaks). We’re also facing issues around educator exhaustion, and they may be able to differentiate more efficiently because of technology. It’s just really really complex. But it’s really really encouraging that the conversation is happening at all. The first step is to build on capacity – there’s no escaping the complexity and nuance of the subject.
SANTOS: There are reports that more screen time leads to poorer educational outcomes. Will this report be documenting only or will it forward policy goals?
Murphy: We’ll have to define it as technology usage during school (including Youtube for movement breaks). We’re also facing issues around educator exhaustion, and they may be able to differentiate more efficiently because of technology. It’s just really really complex. But it’s really really encouraging that the conversation is happening at all. The first step is to build on capacity – there’s no escaping the complexity and nuance of the subject.
HUDSON: Do we have a timeline on the adjacent AI conversation? Can you give people guidance on when they’ll be able to participate in this conversation?
Murphy: The district’s internal working groups have already been working through this; they wanted to be able to get their own thoughts straight before going public. Look towards the end of March for that public input.
HUDSON: As we’re going through the conversations about future programming into 158 Spring Street, this is probably part of how we think about scheduling and soliciting public comment on both topics.
Murphy: FYI, this is going to be a conversation well beyond this year. This will be part of our careers moving forward. So I just want to be realistic regarding the number of working groups that we’ll be able to do this year, and that we’ll have to move with urgency.
HUDSON: It’s multifaceted, it’s hairy, but the perfect is the enemy of the good – we will have to continue to move forward, no matter how many meetings we want to have.
WEINSTEIN: Let’s be thoughtful about how we’re scheduling our meetings for the rest of the year (especially in regards to the strategic plan) – let’s ensure that we’re leveraging the expertise in the community.
Murphy: There is a lot of work happening throughout the district that’s hard to package for a public governing body – we could convene this forum every day but I don’t know if it’ll speed things up internally. We’ll work on figuring out how to convey that info to the committee and the public.
WEINSTEIN: [AMC – didn’t totally get that]
7b. Superintendent Presentation
The Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer will offer an update on the development of the FY 27 Cambridge Public Schools operating budget including the efforts toward community engagement as well as the formulation of budgetary recommendations for consideration by the school committee.
WEINSTEIN: FYI, Weinstein & Siddiqui will be budget co-chairs.
Murphy & CFO Washington present on the FY 27 budget development. Murphy’s disclaimers/framing include:
- As of right now, they’re not assigning price tags to each investment.
- The central office sees each budget process as a mini-strategic planning opportunity and to have a “degree of transparency” about areas to improve upon or build upon.
- He’ll also talk about focus areas for the budget.
- Previously, the budget conversations have discussed bolstering supports for students in crisis, with an intentionally wide breadth for the term “crisis.” They’re now switching their language up to avoid a deficit mindset – calling it “eliminating barriers to engagement.”
Upcoming Budget Meetings:
- 2/23 – Joint city council & school committee roundtable
- 3/11 – Special meeting – superintendent budget presentation
- 3/17 – Statutory public hearing on proposed budget
- 3/25 – Budget workshop – school committee review
- 3/? – Budget workshop – school committee review
- 4/7 – Regular meeting – school committee vote of adoption
- 5 / 6 – City council – budget hearing on CPS adopted budget
Community Engagement: The district is working on soliciting a broad set of community voices through a variety of venues – school councils, ILTs, and other modes of communication.
- 12/10 – CPS staff sessions
- 12/17 – Caregivers
- 1/13 – CPS staff sessions
- 1/21 – Caregivers
- Late January/early February – principals meeting with school communities – all schools
- February TBD – staff and caregivers
- 3/17 @ 6 p.m.: Community (location: CRLS)
CPSD Budget Numbers: Update to the allocation – it’s now $293.5M. It’s a $500,000 transfer from the city, for the CRLS student MBTA passes. CPSD will now manage this entirely. CPSD FY27 general fund revenues have also been updated from FY26:
- Property tax revenue source has increased by 5% (for $13M)
- State Ch. 70 education aid has increased by 2.4% (for $500,000)
- General state aid has decreased from 0.3 to 0% of the budget (for $300,000)
- Federal medicaid reimbursements have stayed stable – no change
- Other revenue sources have stayed stable – no change
In FY23, the CPS budget was $232,389,140; FY27 will be $293,500,000 – that’s a $61.1M (or 26% increase) over four years. As a reminder, CPS is 28% of the city budget. [AMC ed note: this increase was partially driven by lengthening the school day and increasing paraprofessional pay.]
Cambridge Birth Rate History Updated – 2000-2025 with Kindergarten %: The birthrate is still generally declining, but in a more stable way – in 2023, it looked like it was going to fall off of a cliff. This is a relief, making it easier to plan.
School Staffing Structure: It’s a formula – there’s a base-level for all schools + student enrollment + student needs determining allocations.
School Staffing Distribution: 90% of staff work primarily or exclusively supporting students; 10% of staff are management or support staff
Staff Allocations (In Percentages):
- 33% – base level
- 31% – enrollment-based
- 36% – need-based
Charter School Enrollment: Cambridge charter school enrollment has declined since SY 18-19, from 505.7 students to 473.8 students in SY 24-25.
- Benjamin Banneker, Community Charter School of Cambridge, and Prospect Hill Academy accounted for 98.5% of charter school students in FY25. FYI, Banneker recently acquired Matignon, a Catholic school that closed – they’re looking to move into that larger campus in the near future.
- Other schools Cambridge students attend include Pioneer Charter School of Science, KIPP Academy Lynn, Match Charter Public High School, and Brooke Charter School. Excel Academy had a Cambridge student in FY23 & 24.
- Charter schools receive CPSD per pupil amount for each Cambridge student – this comes from the City’s budget – $18M for FY25. This does not show up in the CPSD operating budget.
- When charter school enrollment significantly increases, DESE covers a portion of the increase (which goes directly back to the city of Cambridge).
- Charter schools’ FY 27 prelim enrollment numbers haven’t yet been posted but will come out soon.
For this upcoming year, CPS budget planning limiting factors include:
- Lower projected budget increase than in past years
- Upcoming employee contract negotiations
- Maximizing effectiveness and impact of staff time and monitoring budgeted full time equivalent (FTE) positions
The district’s overarching goals (and the foundations for a new strategic plan) include:
- Educator effectiveness
- Family engagement
- Programmatic and capital planning
FY 2026-2027 preliminary focus areas include:
- Improving student supports
for students in crisis - Before school time
- Data investment
As a reminder, FY 26’s focus areas included educator empowerment and evaluation and family engagement. Those are cornerstone priorities that will continue into the new school year and beyond, and will require systems development at individual schools.
More detail re FY27 focus areas:
- AM time usage: planning for more strategic use of time prior to the start of school will include adjustments to staff hours where contractually permitted, investment in stipend opportunities for academic and recreational support, and transportation software upgrades. (They’ve already upgraded the software, they’re going to look at routes this spring.)
- Data supports: In Murphy’s opinion, for a district that prides itself on utilization of data, they’ve got a limited number of staff to analyze and develop best practices for database management.
- Students in crisis supports:
- Staffing modifications to support crisis response teams
- Potential collaborative partnerships for early education programming
- Intervention-based and/or therapeutic learning settings reflective of student needs.
Re students in crisis support, Murphy wants to spend the most time on this topic tonight. In response to public comment asking what does it mean when we say “crisis,” there’s a real breadth to this focus area. The district has repeatedly heard from educators over the past couple of years about the need to develop best systems and practices for how to respond to student dysregulation. Murphy also believes that the district’s interventions and specialized programs can (and should) be more robust. So where are the opportunities and challenges?
Challenges: This isn’t the first time these areas have been prioritized. Additionally, there are limiting factors – particularly in regards to infrastructure – that the district will have to navigate to confirm that learning environments for all students are improved. The district’s organizational culture will probably also have to continue to shift; some of these ideas and plans will have to continue to be fleshed out over time.
Opportunities: While not as specific as folks might want, below are some ways that this area of focus could play out:
- Consideration of potential programming partnerships to support long and short-term student placements
- Staffing modifications to support crisis response teams
- Potential collaborative partnerships for early education programming partnerships
- Development of short-term therapeutic learning settings.
- Expanding student supports to reduce social/emotional barriers
- Supports for students experiencing social and emotional barriers attributable to mental health needs, behavioral challenges, home-related trauma or housing instability, resulting in strained relations and/or diminished engagement.
- Potential K-2nd special education collaborative
- Upper school “bryt” [AMC ed note: Bridge for Resilient Youth in Transition] intervention system.
- Increase upper school general education social worker complement
- Revised behavioral technician position (designated paraprofessionals)
- CRLS ongoing discussions
- Supports for students experiencing social and emotional barriers attributable to mental health needs, behavioral challenges, home-related trauma or housing instability, resulting in strained relations and/or diminished engagement.
7b. Discussion: Superintendent Presentation
VICE CHAIR DUBE: as we’re thinking about new programming, I would also like to see school design to mitigate the need for these programs. So how are we thinking about designing for students? I’d like to see a push for a long-term school design plan.
Murphy: Parallel processes are very important – and we didn’t pick the word crisis out of a hat. There’s an urgency that we need to change our practices – although we should never lose sight of the fact that the system is working for a lot – but also not for a significant chunk of students.
SANTOS: With regard to student supports – I appreciate that this is a priority, and I appreciate the framing. How will we continue to strengthen the district’s special education services? How does this intersect with the budget?
Murphy: Will invite Desiree Phillips to discuss but this also goes beyond special education – if we’re doing the foundational educational work, then we’re going to do a better job with special education. For example: sometimes a district – no names named – might build really expensive buildings that don’t have enough room! So if we don’t plan longer term and build a sturdier foundation, then the metaphorical building might be faulty.
[AMC ed note: TC: 1:58:03 & wowzers that’s deliberately not pointed while also being completely accurate to some districts that I could also name.]
Re OOD – we have an obligation to create space to serve all kids – but the difficulty of finding appropriate placements is real. Desiree will clean up my words.
Phillips: Our school culture also impacts our students, but culture moves slowly. So I have to move forward to support the needs of our students – we have to move forward to meet their needs, because I don’t give up on five year olds.
SANTOS: [AMC: didn’t catch that]
Murphy: The engagement process has to continue to improve. We have to work with our high-needs communities to bring them in as well. This budget is largely fixed – so we want to ensure that we’re not creating a false narrative while still authentically engaging with our high needs populations.
HARDING: Talk more about guidance counselors, how we’re supporting RSTA, and parental engagement – especially when we’re thinking about high school families – the ratio of family liaisons to students is out of whack there. [AMC ed synopsis: Something something some schools are in crisis academically something something.]
Murphy: We’ve increased our guidance support at the high school. There are a lot of great things happening at the high school. But also last year it had a 34% chronic absenteeism problem – and that’s unacceptable. Right now the data is better than it was last year – but it is still very concerning. And I’m not comfortable with how RSTA is integrated into the high school. So as we talk about our district strategic plan – that’s going to need to include the high school, which is in some ways a district unto itself.
Re the guidance/family liaison – hiring more might end up fragmenting the responsibility in an unfortunate way.
[Pause for breath.]
Murphy: Member Harding is correct that we do have a number of schools that are underperforming academically. In terms of how that will be reflected in the budget – we can identify how the investments can be made re student needs. But we’re still better staffed than basically any other district. So it’s also about how to execute better – but I don’t think we’re going to solve those problems by throwing money at the issue. Re the use of time – while we’re not going to shake up the funding formula, we’re going to have to make decisions that will be unpopular in the short term but effective in the long-term.
HARDING: This is deeply important for me – and I am scared for our black and brown boys who may end up in prison rather than educated. So yeah, it’s urgent.
JAIKUMAR: Thanks for lifting up new issues in the budget presentation. Shout out to Jess Goetz & Anne Coburn’s public comments – esp Jess Goetz’s notes re disciplinary patterns. Thank you so much for investing in social workers in upper schools. Kicking back a question to Murphy regarding infrastructure – can you be more specific?
Murphy: Our infrastructure deeply informs how the district operates. There’s a standard that we are living up to because of these historic investments. For example: RAUC/Peabody is not built for two schools. We have a number of schools that are old, some of which have really good educational infrastructure – and there’s a significant discrepancy between those schools and the new schools. But those older schools are small. And when you take the school choice variable into account, it can create a cycle that leaves those schools out and an overconcentration of high need students at those schools. But you can create off-ramps for that process with strategic decision-making. So when we work on the strategic planning process, we need to take those questions into account.
JAIKUMAR: Agree that is something that we’ll have to keep in mind as we move forward.
Murphy: When the round of infrastructure investments were made, the Tobin/DVUS building was made larger – and that doesn’t reflect our current feeder patterns. I’m not advocating for a return to a K-8 structure. There are other options out there, and I think we’re going to have to continue to look at them to help put students in a better position to succeed. Our current structure is not it. And we’re going to have to address that.
HUDSON: We’re talking a lot about strategic plans – but if we’re going to keep doing what we’re doing – because the budget will look like it already looks like. Which means that we are going to give up on five year olds. We would act very differently if we had hard concrete goals that were genuine priorities. (References classroom clearing at Amigos.) We have to pick a few things rather than fifty things – I understand that you can’t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime, but we can’t keep ducking the responsibility for making real change.
Murphy: Member Hudson’s point of the static nature is well taken. The frustration is shared. If it were just a matter of will, of making a discrete decision, then we would have done it already. I think you’re right to feel frustrated – but I don’t think this budget is exactly the same. It’s not just about the budget – we do have to be willing to change personnel & practices that aren’t working. I don’t want to make it seem like we’re okay with the incremental progress, but we also need to make sustainable change. In 10 years from now, will we look different as a district? That’s why we have to think through the changes – that’s why we have to insist on and make change where we can. [References needing a spec ed collaborative.] To be very clear – this is a modest change. Our middle schools have been advocating for an appropriate complement of social workers for some time. Yeah, this is marginal progress (though it’s important to the kids it will affect.) But this isn’t really the best forum to work through the necessary conversations. You’re right about the structural systemic problems – but I also want to approach this conversation with nuance.
SIDDIQUI: There was a RSTA review in 2023 – can we revisit that and see where we’re at before we continue to put in any additional funds? I do usually vote for the budget (because there are ongoing contractual commitments) but if there are ways that we can better support the students, then let’s hear them. I’m glad we’re increasing support for the upper schools. Please tell us more in the future.
WEINSTEIN: Happy to see a social worker per upper school. Yes, there are learning labs throughout the district – but would like to be able to share our best practices throughout the district. Thanks to Member Santos for lifting up reaching out to our highest needs populations for budget commentary. Re fragmentation – when you have this many people working, we do encounter places where we aren’t working efficiently. How are we supporting the people doing the work already? Re strategic plan or district plan – we need to have a shared understanding of what our strategic plan is – that should include measurable timelines and targets. It should be an actual plan.
While we think that we’re making small improvements, we’ve had significant wins in the recent past. Science of reading curriculum – huge. Commitment to getting kids to school on time – makes a significant difference. It’s inspiring to sit in on professional development for teachers.
Murphy: As we wrap up the conversation, everything pales in comparison to shifting the culture so that we’re centering students. Many of our flaws lie in adult-oriented decision making. We can’t develop interventions or special education partnerships without having high quality Tier 1 instruction. We can’t create strategies that turn into band-aids.
Phillips: It’s really hard to meet therapeutic needs in a school. These decisions are based on concrete data and feedback from families. We’re working hard to try different things.
Murphy: We have to do things differently in how we are organized if we want different outcomes, which I acknowledge creates anxiety. But the committee rightfully expects us to talk about the need for change. So I have to speak candidly about our organizational deficiencies in how our district is structured.
WEINSTEIN: I trust you to make these structural decisions with care.
DUBE: Strategic plan should be pinned to the budget – we are asking you to execute better and paint the picture with details to support the picture. We’re all ready to capitalize on these changes.
7c. CPS District Plan: None.
7d. Consent Agenda:
#26-015 Recommendation: Day & Residential Program Services not Available from the Cambridge School Department
#26-016 Recommendation: Gifts/Miscellaneous Receipts
#26-017 Recommendation: Grant Award: FY26 Broad Institute Coding Clubs (SC26153) – pulled by Jaikumar
SIDDIQUI moved to vote on the balance.
Unanimous.
7d. Discussion: Consent Agenda
WEINSTEIN: The purpose of this grant is to provide resources to host after school coding clubs at CPS schools. The Broad Institute provides all of the materials and staff to implement the program. Grant funds will support: after school coding clubs at Amigos, Putnam Avenue Upper School, and Rindge Avenue Upper School during the 2025-26 school year; stipends for a teacher at each school to serve as club advisor ($500 per teacher, per semester long club).
JAIKUMAR: Why are these three schools in particular (rather than other schools) recommended to receive this funding? What kinds of support do schools across the district receive in this area?
Murphy: If school leaders find themselves financially unable to accommodate stipends like this in the future, they should advocate to the district and we can, more often than not, find strategies around that. More often than not, though, school administrators don’t move forward with opportunities like this because of a perceived lack of alignment with school goals. So it’s often not about funding as it is about a lack of prioritization. But we have to be more transparent about that choice.
Manuel Fernandez: Opportunities like this aren’t unusual. Every year, our upper schools are invited by MIT and other schools to participate in coding activities like this one. So it’s really more a matter of a faculty advisor wanting to participate in the activity and to be the liaison between the school and the institution. These are the schools that chose to participate.
SIDDIQUI moves to adopt, SANTOS seconds. The motion passes unanimously.
8. Non-Consent Agenda: None.
9. School Committee Agenda (Policy Matters/Notifications/Requests for Information)
#26-018: Educator Voice in School Committee Deliberations | Joint Motion by Chair Weinstein, Member Jaikumar, Vice Chair Dube: Download Attachment – pulled by Member Harding
#26-019: Meeting Formality Rule Amendment | Joint Motion by Member Jaikumar, Member Hudson: Download Attachment – pulled by Mayor Siddiqui.
9. Discussion: School Committee Agenda (Policy Matters/Notifications/Requests for Information)
26-018: Educator Voice in School Committee Deliberations
WHEREAS: The School Committee values the perspectives, priorities, concerns, recommendations and feedback of various stakeholders, including current and former Cambridge Public Schools (CPS) educators, in conducting its work; and
WHEREAS: There are currently insufficient opportunities for current or former CPS educators to engage directly during School Committee meetings other than during public comment; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the School Committee undertakes to provide additional opportunities for direct educator participation in School Committee meetings beyond the limited time afforded in public comment; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this matter be referred to the Governance Subcommittee to be considered as a part of the annual review of the School Committee rules; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Governance Subcommittee will discuss and research this matter; shall consider various alternatives, including but not limited to amending the agenda to include a designated or optional educator presentation, a non-voting membership, or any other proposal; and shall recommend to the full School Committee one or more options to better ensure frontline educator perspectives, priorities, concerns, recommendations and feedback are heard by the Committee.
HARDING yields to the motion makers.
JAIKUMAR: This has been discussed for sometime in the community, as well as during the recent campaign season. It reflects a desire to engage with our educator community and to work with educators more collaboratively. As we talk about how to build a better culture for our schools, this is also reflective of a culture that I would like to build. Elevating educator voice as a principle is important, and I’d like to address some concerns from the community that Mr. Montero raised as well.
From my perspective, this is not a case where sending it to a subcommittee – where there can be more public involvement – is an attempt to bury it. This is something that really matters to me, to several other members, and to our workforce. Going forward, this is something that is going to be top of mind for several other members as well.
WEINSTEIN reads the motion. [AMC ed note: I moved the text to the top of this content area]
WEINSTEIN: So this is a recommendation for the motion to go to the governance subcommittee. I’ll announce all subcommittee assignments a little later, but Mayor Siddiqui will chair the governance subcommittee, which will also include myself and Member Jaikumar. Secretary Christo will assist the school committee in scheduling the subcommittee meetings – we’ve found in the past that we’ve had issues in scheduling conflicts when individual members try to schedule them themselves. That said, I want to appreciate Member Jaikumar and Vice Chair Dube for collaborating on this motion with me.
DUBE: I think most of the material pieces have been said. But in the spirit of zero dollar culture shifts, I think having a creative, collaborative conversation about what including educator voices looks like is an important practice as we start the important work of the annual rules review – which should be happening very soon.
HARDING: I have concerns and I have an amendment or a substitution that the clerk will read. My concerns: it’s not lost on me that when you run for office, it’s a different process and a different responsibility that you have when you’re speaking to people than when you serve. And I think sometimes that transition can be difficult. I believe that a voting seat – particularly by the union, but also by others – can be very problematic for the business that we do; it’s a clear conflict of interest, and we have to talk about that.
What stuns me is that many of you have already committed to a non-voting seat for the CEA; the question was asked and you committed. That’s what happened. So to me, sending it to a subcommittee to act as if there’s an exercise in deliberation is disingenuous. So we really have to think about the equity that I think we’re losing here. There are many stakeholders who will not be afforded the luxury – the privilege – to have a non-voting seat until we make this equitable. In the last term, we talked about this. There was even a legal opinion from the AG that it might even be illegal if we allowed one particular group to have more time, more access to this body.
The fact remains that we are elected equally. We’ve gone out and convinced the public that we should serve in this important role. And that’s the reality of who we serve. I have constituents that I’d like to see have a non-voting seat here. I’d like to see people from the Cambridge Street Upper School to have a non-voting seat, because I think they’re in big trouble.
The question was “would you vote for a non-voting seat for the CEA” and you said yes. That’s what happened. So what I would say is, if we want to increase access, which I think is important, we should have stakeholders who are closest to the pain. The CEA president should be the liaison – meeting with us two to three times a week, bringing the concerns of the educators.
Who’s bringing the concerns of the kids who were not proficient in their science MCAS? Or the kids that Ms. Hudson talked about, who can’t read at grade level? Those are the people that we need to talk to. I’m committed to bringing parity, and I’m committed to the kids and families of the Cambridge Public School system that we are here to serve.
If the clerk would read my amendment? Mr. Chair, you let me know the best way to inject an amendment into this conversation. I’d also like to hear from the superintendent if he has an opinion on this.
WEINSTEIN: A point of clarity – this motion has a variety of ways to address the concern of including more educator voices. That’s a benefit of bringing it to the subcommittee, where a variety of options can be explored. I think we should hear the amendment.
Secretary Christo reads the amendment:
RESOLVED: That the Governance Subcommittee will also discuss and research mechanisms for structured parent and caregiver input during School Committee meetings, including but not limited to a non-voting membership for important parent and community stakeholders, such as the Cambridge Families of Color Coalition, Cambridge Special Education Parent Advisory Council, Cambridge Families of Asian Descent, Cambridge School Volunteers, and the Cambridge Advanced Learning Association.
[AMC ed note: Procedural who’s on first talk.]
HARDING: I want to make it clear that I’m not taking anything away – I just want to add to the motion.
SIDDIQUI: Can you clarify the role of Cambridge School Volunteers in this amendment? It’s a non-profit.
HARDING: I’m happy to strike that from this motion.
WEINSTEIN: I’m noting the words “such as” – it’s not a complete list, but could include groups like the ones listed in the amendment.
SIDDIQUI: As the chair of the gov/ops committee, I’m thinking about these changes and how they impact student learning. I understand the interest, but I’m concerned with how much time we’re spending on this (and proposing to spend on it in the future) – given the strategic plan, and other things which are very, very important. I’m fine seeing what other places do – I’m open to do that. But I want to think about process for this – this can be a months and months long initiative, and I’m struggling with the amount of time we can spend on it. I’ll yield but I’ll support the amendment.
SANTOS: I’d like to add, respectfully, to the record, that I want to challenge this idea that there is a dichotomy between educators as an interest group and what’s in the best interests of our students. Educators are in the building with the kids every day, and can make informed recommendations about what we need to improve in our district. So I just wanted to challenge that false dichotomy.
WEINSTEIN: I also support the amendment; I think it’s in the spirit of this motion.
JAIKUMAR: The purpose of the original motion on the floor – I’d like to raise up what Member de Paula Santos just said – it was to elevate and take advantage of the expertise of the people in this city who do the day to day work of educating kids. With respect, I also reject the false dichotomy that taking that expertise and incorporating it into our processes would not be in the interest of certain kids – I think the opposite is true. I’m fully in favor of this committee and the subcommittee exploring ways to open up our processes to a greater number of people in the community. I will say, with respect to representing parents, students, in the Cambridge Public Schools, and ensuring their voices are heard – that’s also our job. That’s what we were elected to do. Those are the people that in some cases voted to put us here, and in other cases, to rely on us – because they can’t or don’t vote – to serve them. I don’t think there’s any inconsistency with us vigorously doing that role and yet understanding as a body that we can benefit from the extensive expertise that people who do the work everyday educating our kids do. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
WEINSTEIN: If there’s a motion to add this amendment, I would hear that.
HARDING: I move to add this amendment to the current motion we’re discussing.
WEINSTEIN: And this would be as an additional resolved on the end of the motion.
SIDDIQUI: Seconded.
WEINSTEIN: Roll call?
DE PAULA SANTOS: Present.
DUBE: No.
HARDING: Yes.
HUDSON: Yes.
JAIKUMAR: No.
SIDDIQUI: Yes.
WEINSTEIN: Yes.
Amendment passes.
HARDING moves to adopt #26-018. Seconded by JAIKUMAR.
Roll call:
DE PAULA SANTOS: Yes.
DUBE: Yes.
HARDING: Yes.
HUDSON: Yes.
JAIKUMAR: Yes.
SIDDIQUI: Yes.
WEINSTEIN: Yes.
Motion passes unanimously.
26-019: Meeting Formality Rule Amendment | Joint Motion by Member Jaikumar, Member Hudson: Download Attachment – pulled by Mayor Siddiqui.
WHEREAS: The School Committee represents the people of Cambridge and its proceedings should be as accessible to the public as possible, to provide stakeholders with the information they need; and
WHEREAS: It is incumbent upon the School Committee to conduct its business with as much accessibility and efficiency as possible and to provide a welcoming atmosphere to community stakeholders; and
WHEREAS: Excessive formality in School Committee meetings can serve as a barrier both to the public understanding and to efficiency in its proceedings; and
WHEREAS: The School Committee wishes to maintain decorum and civility while promoting an atmosphere of collaboration, cooperation, and accessibility; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the School Committee amend Rule 4.3 by eliminating (f), “Promote a formal atmosphere, with members referring to other members in the third person, and speaking to each other and to members of the public through the Chair.”
[AMC ed note: This was intense actual rules lawyering, to the point where I’m just going to recap rather than more precisely transcribe. TLDR: Member Jaikumar would really like to speak to other members directly by name rather than going through the Chair. Aka – “through you, to Member Whositwhatsit,” he’d prefer asking a fellow Member a direct question and get a direct answer “like a grown-up.” He thinks the excessive formality gets in the way of the work rather than provides a vehicle for the work to move forward. Given that the body is sending several other requests for rules changes to the governance committee, it seemed like a good time to bring this forward to demonstrate to the public that the SC is genuinely committed to creating a more open and welcoming atmosphere.
Harding and Siddiqui disagreed. Siddiqui didn’t really understand what the motion makers were going for with this motion. In this and in other bodies, people already interrupt each other, and she had a hard time understanding how excessive formality is a barrier to the public. If folks want to send it to the governance committee, that’s fine, happy to talk about it, but she struggles to see the value-add in this motion. Harding made the point that every board has a chair, and going through the chair is pretty much par for the course. While the style of the chair sure does matter, he’s also struggling to understand the desire for the motion – he doesn’t think formality decreases efficiency.
Weinstein suggests that the motion goes to the governance subcommittee to include during the rules review. He also noted that this committee has not yet fully been trained on the Roberts Rules of Order and is currently undergoing MASC training on school committee governance. Dube suggests that this particular motion reflects a broader desire for democratization in the School Committee and that the motion be referred to the communication and community relations subcommittee.]
Dube moved to refer the motion to the communication and community relations subcommittee. Jaikumar seconded.
Roll call:
DE PAULA SANTOS: Yes.
DUBE: Yes.
HARDING: No.
HUDSON: Yes.
JAIKUMAR: Yes.
SIDDIQUI: No.
WEINSTEIN: No.
4 yes, 3 no – motion goes to the communication and community relations subcommittee.
10. Resolutions
WEINSTEIN: There aren’t any, but they’ll work on pulling together a resolution honoring the teacher who won the award (and her name will be properly spelled!).
11. Announcements
DE PAULA SANTOS: The Thrive! Equity Audit is on Monday at King Open, 5:30 – 7:30.
WEINSTEIN: Food at 5!
HARDING: I’ll be bringing a ceremonial resolution before the body, but I want to recognize Nicole Pachiko [AMC ed note: I wish I knew how to spell this name!] – a school resource officer who retired on Monday, 2/2, at 9 a.m. I want to extend my heartfelt thanks for her 31 years of service. She’s the epitome of a kid from Cambridge who made good.
WEINSTEIN: She epitomizes the amazing work that the SROs do – what we do in Cambridge with this role is a model for what this role could be elsewhere.
SIDDIQUI: On Thursday, Feb 19th, 11 – 2 p.m., I’d like to invite folks to join me for a community skate at Kendall Square. Free hot chocolate, free skates, come and join.
Murphy: I’d like to thank the Cambridge Community Foundation for commissioning this report – I’m extremely grateful for their support and to My Brother’s Keeper for hosting the event – and I’m looking forward to hearing the presentation. While the report was commissioned some time ago, there are still active areas of concern that affect us today. I think there’s going to be a lot of commonality between the discussion coming up on Monday evening and the discussion we had tonight.
WEINSTEIN: There are several performances coming up, including the CRLS jazz band performing at the Lily Pad on 2/9 at 7 p.m. Also announced the subcommittee members.
| Subcommittee Assignments | |
| Buildings and Grounds | Arjun Jaikumar (Chair) Elizabeth Hudson Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui |
| Communications and Community Relations | Arjun Jaikumar & Luisa DePaula Santos (Co-Chairs) Richard Harding |
| Curriculum and Achievement | Caitlin Dube & Elizabeth Hudson (Co-Chairs) Richard Harding |
| Governance | Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui (Chair) Arjun Jaikumar David Weinstein |
| School Climate | Caitlin Dube & Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui (Co-Chairs) Luisa DePaula Santos |
| Special Education/Student Services | Luisa DePaula Santos (Chair) Caitlin Dube Richard Harding |
| Budget (Committee of the Whole) | Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui (Co-Chair) David Weinstein (Co-Chair) |
12. Late Orders
None.
13. Communications and Reports from City Officers
None.
14. Move to Adjourn
WEINSTEIN: I’d entertain a motion to adjourn…
SIDDIQUI: So moved!
DUBE: So moved –
WEINSTEIN: On a motion eagerly offered by Mayor Siddiqui and seconded by Vice Chair Dube, can I have a roll call please?
Passes unanimously (Hudson absent).
Meeting adjourned.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.