Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-26-SC-min "l-_ SS - Page 15 January 26, 1976 On Monday evening January 26, 1976 the Lexington School Committee conducted a regular meeting at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School. The meeting began at 7:30 p.m. The following were in attendance: Mesdames Swanson and Berchtold, Messrs. Brown, Rotberg, Wadsworth and student representative Alan Wachman. Also present were Messrs. Spiris, Monderer, Barnes and Miss Quinn. After the opening of the public session by the Chairman it was VOTED: to go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter. (Berchtold, Wadsworth, Brown, Swanson Yes; Rotberg not in attend- ance) It was VOTE ON GRIEVANCE VOTED: to deny the grievance that was held in Executive Session. (Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson, Berchtold, Yes; Rotberg abstain) Mr. Spiris acknowledged the fact that there were some roof leaks CLARKE ROOF LEAKS at Clarke Junior High School earlier in the day. This was a result of the ice build-up on the flat roof. He wished to make it known to all, that the administration was cognizant of the leaks and measures were being taken to alleviate and solve the problem. Mrs. Swanson asked the administration to check to see if the roof were still covered by a war- ranty and if so to take appropriate action to have it repaired. Mrs. Daniel Fenn, 130 Worthen Rd. , commented on the size of mathe- PUBLIC matics classes at Muzzey Junior High School. She stated that it appeared PARTICIPATION the upper two levels were very small in class size, making other classes larger. She felt that the larger classes included students who needed extra help and individual attention. This seemed to be opposite of what the children's needs were. She wanted to know if this phenonema of small class sizes was a conscious policy on the part of the School Committee and the Superintendent. She wondered if it did not seem like a form of elitism. She asked the committee to think about this topic as they dis- cussed the junior high school programs. Mr. Spiris responded saying it was true that small numbers of math students did cluster at the upper levels and classes were very small. However, this was true because they were advanced students and if there were enough advanced students to bring the class size up to the school would do so. Donald White, member of the appropriations committee spoke on be- half of that committee. He said that it was their hope to see the budget maintained as close to the present level as possible with fiscal respon- sibility and quality education being kept in mind. He said that he was concerned over the possibility of a $1,000,000 increase. He suggests reducing this increase by scaling down some operations. He suggested reorganization of administration, postponement of sabbatical leaves, ex- amination of costs in pupil-teacher ratios. He felt that cuts could be made in other areas rather than reducing pupil-teacher ratios, etc. An- other area he suggested was the area of vandalism which was costing the Page 16 January 26, 1976 town approximately $400,000. He suggested that the school department work with the police department to see if they could bring this figure down. Mrs. Swanson said she was conscious of the fact that the economic conditions of the time dictated trying to do better without sacrificing quality education. She said the School Committee would consider Mr. White 's remarks. Chris Anderson, Lexington High School senior, and spokesman for EARLY GRADUATION the graduation committee presented a proposal to the Lexington School Committee to change the graduation date. He said the late graduation date this year, prevented senior class members from obtaining jobs, and enrolling in other activities. He explained that the change of gradu- ation date proposal had the support of the P.T.A. , the P.T.S.A. , the L.E.A. , and administration, and hoped that the School Committee would receive it with favorable action. He suggested that graduation change from June 16 to June 9, and senior classes cease as of June 2 He said the committee had surveyed surrounding towns and Lexington was the last to graduate. He also indicated there was support from parents in his survey and said that concern for summer jobs was a valid reason for re- consideration of graduation dates. He also asked that the second part of his proposal be considered. The committee recommended the length of the school year calendar be set at 185 days with five days alloted for unusual reasons such as snow, emergency closing. If these five days were not used each year, they would be deducted and graduation would be scheduled twelve days before the last day of school. Mr. Spiris said that the graduation date suggested was consistent with the law and he was supportive of the request to change graduation from June 16 to June 9, however, he was not in agreement with the second part of the proposal. Dr. Clune was then asked for his recommendation and he a- greed with the Superintendent. After this discussion it was VOTED: to change the date of graduation this year from June 16 to June 9, and cease senior classes as of June 2, 1976. (Brown, Rotberg, Unanimous) Student representative Alan Wachman requested the School Committee consider the possible reduction of vacation times in future calendars. He felt that an analysis should be made of February and April vacations, thus closing the school year earlier. Dr. Rotberg felt that the present vacation method saved heating costs during the winter months and that it was one reason for the decision last year. Mr. Spiris complimented the graduation committee for the work they did and charged the seniors to find support for shorter vacations. He hoped they could rally support for this concept with other organizations and he would like to appoint two students to work on the calendar com- mittee. Chris Anderson agreed to submit two student names. He said students felt that Christmas vacation should be shorter rather than the February or April vacation. Dr. Rotberg replied again stating that April might not be the focus, if one was thinking of economics. Page 17 January 26, 1976 It was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Berchtold, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll #15C $392,482.59 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #15NC 68,555. 13 Expenses January 16, 1976 Bill Schedule #102 11,046.62 January 16, 1976 #103 1,855.39 January 16, 1976 #104 3,750.61 January 23, 1976 #105 5,319. 15 January 23, 1976 #106 1,466. 77 January 23, 1976 #107 41,818.96 Expenses (Carryover) January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #185 36.00 Athletics January 16, 1976 Bill Schedule #17 2,509.44 January 30, 1976 Payroll #17 433.50 January 30, 1976 #18 470.00 Vocational Education January 9, 1976 Transportation #11V 91.20 January 9, 1976 Tuition #12V 30.00 January 16, 1976 Tuition #13V 386.85 January 23, 1976 Transportation #14V 265.20 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington Funds) METCO January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll (inc. tutoring) 3,328.75 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #9n 1,334.39 January 16, 1976 Bill Schedule #4 24,887.20 Teacher Training Program II January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 368.85 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #10NC 96.80 January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #7 1,540.20 Title III Administrative Grant January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #lOAd.G. 70.00 LAB Pre-Vocational Life Care Program January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 580.46 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #11 LAB 1,182.75 Page 18 January 26,1976 LEADS Program January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll $1,403.87 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #10 675.26 (this includes transfer in amount of $73.76) January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #7 57.40 Autistic Program (Lexington) January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 717.96 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #10 280.80 January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #2 10.00 Autistic Program (Arlington) January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 2,667.45 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #11 153.60 Multi-Handicapped (Burlington) January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 425.65 January 23, 1976 Classified Payroll #10 168.00 Pre-School Program (Burlington) January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 1,475.78 January 9, 1976 Classified Payroll #9 336.00 January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #10 106.41 Pre-School (Bedford) LABB January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 269.23 January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #3 480.00 Title I: P.L.89-313-Spec. Ed. January 16, 1976 Professional Payroll 102.89 ESEA Library January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #4 897.74 ACE Program January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #3 346.94 Bus Ticket Account January 12, 1976 Bill Schedule 1,066.10 Pupil School Material Recoveries Program January 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #31 472. 86 Mr. Spiris commented on the recommendation for the use of para- PERSONAL SERVICES professionals in the classroom. Dr. Rotberg replied saying that the BUDGET request was difficult to analyze. Since a great deal of information was required, he requested that the Superintendent present a detailed plan of how a para-professional would be used explaining role descrip- tions, etc. Mrs. Berchtold agreed and said that it was difficult to comment on the role due to the brief information supplied. She felt that para-professionals were an addition to the present staff numbers and could not agree, since Lexington was well supplied with supportive personnel. Mr. Spiris replied that he felt the request could be ful- filled to present a detailed plan, but if the committee felt that they could not accept the idea of para-professionals he would prefer them to say so now before a lot of work was required. He emphasized that para- professionals were not being hired to supplant but to supplement. Mrs. Page 19 January 26, 1976 Swanson said reallocation from within perhaps should be considered PERSONAL SERVICES rather than increasing staff by adding para-professionals. She also BUDGET (CONT.) said a better look at the role of teacher assistants and tutors would have better payoff for Lexington. The committee agreed to discuss this topic at its next meeting. The discussion of the junior high school program began with an JUNIOR HIGH audio-visual presentation on Clarke Junior High prepared by Mr. Arthur SCHOOL PROGRAM Latham, staff member at Clarke. A detailed written report was presented to the School Committee in advance of the meeting. Making presentations were Mr. John Hibbard, Principal of Clarke, Mr. Eugene Sullivan, Princi- pal of Diamond, Mr. David Terry, Principal of Muzzey. The main topic of discussion centered around phasing in the junior high schools. Student advisory committee members present were asked for their opinions on phas- ing in the junior high schools. Some of them felt that grouping by abil- ity was better for teaching students. Others felt that heterogeneous grouping had better payoff for teaching students. Students spoke about their positive and negative experiences with ability grouping and heter- ogeneous grouping. The issue was not resolved. There was disagreement among the three principals as to what type of grouping best served the purpose of the junior high schools. Mr. Spiris supported the phasing concept strongly. One principal suggested that his staff be asked for opinions before eliminating any ability grouping. This prompted a re- quest by Dr. Rotberg that the subject of phasing, ability grouping, heterogeneous grouping, etc. , be reconsidered at the committee 's first meeting in April. In the meantime the individual junior high school staffs would discuss the concept. Mr. Spiris would make a recommenda- tion to the School Committee in April on the topic. Dr. Rotberg said that he hoped the School Committee would go on SCHOOL CLOSINGS record that evening that there be no school closings or transfer of spaces for other purposes for the next school year. After a brief dis- cussion it was VOTED: that the school committee resolve not to close any school build- ings for the 1976-1977 school year and that no space be taken out of a school that would be used for non-school purposes. (Rotberg, Berchtold, Unanimous) Mr. Brown discussed the hope that positive planning would take place before any classrooms were phased out. After a brief discussion it was VOTED: that the school committee make definite plans to eliminate a pro- portionate number of classrooms from the school system beginning in the 1977 school year. (Brown, Berchtold, Swanson, Wadsworth, YES, Rotberg, NO) . The School Committee reviewed the letter of support for amendments CHAPTER 766 of the special education offer proposed by the Brookline School Depart- ment. Page 20 January 26, 1976 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent it was VOTED: to support the proposed changes in the Chapter 766 amendment. Amendment to Chapter 766 An act for the development of a legislative formula for shared fundings of pupil expenditures incurred by local school systems under the provisions and subsequent regulations of Chapter 766. Preamble: Chapter 766 is herein recognized and accepted as a necessary en- actment to provide adequate and appropriate educational and sup- port services for pupils with wide ranging special needs. This amendment seeks no abridgement of intent, entitlement, due pro- cess or delivery of these services to such children. • Whereas: 1. Reductions and eliminations of services previously provided by state agencies have shifted the funding burden from diverse state revenues to the overloaded and regressive local property tax, these reductions of services have occurred despite their inclusion in Chapter 766 as available state resources, without legislative ac- tion, the original legislative intent to pool and share costs has been substantially eroded by such agencies as the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Coummission, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Youth Services, and the Department of Public Wel- fare, and Whereas: 2. Reimbursement formulas, unavailable to local school committees for planning and budgeting purposes appear to produce reimburse- ment amounts for towns which seem to bear little relationship to the amounts expended locally for special education. Vastly in- creased services often yield reimbursements comparable to those of pre-Chapter 766 years, and Whereas: 3. Section 13 of Chapter 766, by stipulating that reimbursements shall not exceed 110 per cent of the applicable state average expendi- ture for each special education pupil minus the state average ex- penditure per pupil, further increases local costs by lowering the state's responsibility by averaging per-pupil costs and Chap- ter 766 costs. By so doing, school committees making maximal educational efforts are twice penalized, and Whereas: 4. Section 10 of Chapter 766 mandated that the state bear all or part of the total costs, and that parents be involved for part of the support and care costs, if any. Subsequent regulations place no cost burden on parents, without regard to ability to pay, and Page 21 January 26, 1976 Whereas: 5. There are virtually no fiscal limits placed upon recommended pro- totypes requiring separate programs and maintenance, such extra- ordinary expenses for relatively few children place a most in- equitable burden on local schools, causing substantial decreases in pupil services to other needful pupils, Be it resolved that: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1. Aggregate and unify its child servicing agencies and funds and provide sufficient funds to carry a major proportion of the full costs of Chapter 766. 2. Enjoin the State Department of Education in its regional office approval of Core Evaluation recommendations to directly assume its costs at the time of program approval, in the following man- ner, and 3. Fund all previously approved programs in the same manner, com- mencing the first fiscal year after enactment. Be it enacted: That Section 13 of Chapter 766 be amended thusly: replacing part of line 8 through part of line 17 ("provided how- ever that the amount of such reimbursement for each special edu- cation pupil in the city, town or school district shall not ex- ceed 110 per cent of the applicable state average expenditure for each special education pupil minus the state average expendi- ture per school pupil.") To read: "The amount of such reimbursements to local school dis- tricts and/or direct payment to vendors shall be the difference in excess of the total annual costs per-state-approved special needs pupil and the following levels of local fiscal responsibil- ity: (1) for programs which are public school centered (including regional and collaborative arrangements) the State shall assume a reimbursement commitment of costs which exceed 120 per cent of the local schools ' current per-pupil ex- penditures. (2) For day school placements outside of public school con- trol, the State shall assume a direct vendor payment commitment for costs which exceed 150 per cent of the local schools ' current per-pupil expenditure. Regional boards at the time of approval shall develop a sliding scale of partial costs to parents on an ability-to-pay basis. (3) For non-public residential school placements the State shall assume a direct vendor payment commitment of costs which exceed 200 per cent of the local schools ' current per-pupil expenditures. Regional boards at the program approval shall develop a sliding scale of partial costs to parents on an ability-to-pay basis. Page 22 January 26, 1976 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the following New Personnel. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES (PROFESSIONAL) VOTED: to accept the following Personnel Changes (Professional)(Brown; Wadsworth, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES (CLASSIFIED) VOTED: to accept the following Personnel Changes (Classified)(Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) New Personnel Transfer Resignations Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was FREE & REDUCED PRICE MEALS VOTED: to accept the revision to the regulations regarding free and re- duced price meals. The Financial Statement was discussed. FINANCIAL STATE- MENT Cost implications of operating Munroe School vs. present Adminis- COST IMPLICATIONS tration Building was discussed. MUNROE SCHOOL Page 23 January 26, 1976 Dr. Monderer presented a request to the School Committee to pay for MINUTEMAN SCHOOL transportation for students participating in the Minuteman School Time Sharing Program. He said that 55 had participated under the occupational competence grant and at the moment 7 students from Muzzey would go to the Minuteman for a 5 week cycle program which was approximately i day each day. The school committee consensus was to fund the program. It was VOTED: to adjourn to go into Executive Session at 11:41 p.m. for a negotiation matter. (Berhctold, Wadsworth, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. B nes Recording S cretary /k Pro Tem