1976-01-05-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 3 January 5, 1976 Dr. Rotberg commented that the hiring of a person in September was very difficult due to the problem of finding funds after budget develop- ment. He felt that the most appropriate time to include funds for new staff would be in the initial budget phase. He felt that the beginning of school was so important to children that it was a wise investment to keep the size of the kindergarten classes small. He emphasized the need for good ratios, and felt it was an inexpensive way to deal with a real problem. After further discussion it was MOVED: to reduce the total kindergarten positions by i from the recom- mended total of 12.0 kindergarten classroom teachers to 11.5 for the 1976-1977 school year. (Brown, Berchtold, Swanson, Wadsworth, YES, Rotberg, NO) . Mrs. Berchtold commented that 20 kindergarten youngsters per session GRADES 1-6 for one teacher should be a maximum amount and asked if any other resour- TEACHERS ces could be provided for teachers. Mr. Spiris responded saying that a proposal for para-professional would be included in the budget. Mrs. Berchtold inquired if there were other alternatives such as increased teacher-aide time. Mr. Spiris replied saying a role description would have to be developed. He noted his concern for the instruction of the youngster and felt that a para-professional rather than an aide would best be able to service the youngster in conjunction with the classroom teacher. The School Committee reviewed the staffings of each of the elemen- STUDENT-TEACHER tary schools. Mrs. Swanson emphasized that the School Committee was try- RATIOS ing to take each school, each class and eliminate large classes. The fo- cus of the budget development was not to decrease the overall student- teacher ratio, but to evaluate each individual school and each classroom. Mrs. Berchtold supported Mrs. Swanson's comment and added that if the committee wanted to make a further impact they should consider a reduc- tion in the number of support staff. Dr. Rotberg listed student-teacher ratios of comparable towns noting that Lexington was not at the top of the list in advantageous ratios, but at the bottom of that list. He felt that the emphasis should focus on a reduction of the overall pupil-teacher ratio, without a dismantling of support staff for teachers. Mrs. Berchtold responded saying that non-class specialist ratios were also included on that chart and Lexington compared extremely favor- ably with other school systems. Mr. Spiris interjected that he didn't feel the classroom teacher load was being reduced by the budget recommendation of a .6 child reduc- tion per teacher. -If there were a further decline in support staff it would not alleviate the load but would add to the burden of the teacher. Student representative Alan Wachman expressed concern about compari- sons with other towns. His feeling was that Lexington should not worry about what other towns were doing, but should look at our own situation, and view it as an opportunity to improve the classroom teaching situation for students. He also felt that .6 reduction in ratio was not an improve- ment.