1976-05-10-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 91 May 10, 1976 Mrs. Griffin, Coordinator of the School Lunch Program noted that the amount of nitrites in foods had been reduced greatly by the federal government. She said natural foods also contained them. She stated that hot dogs were used only twice a month and that alternatives could be provided anytime to students expressing concern over school lunch. Dr. Rotberg commented that he felt there was not a good reason to include processed meats in the school menu. Even though data was not sufficient, he expressed concern about gambling with the health of children. Mr. Wadsworth and Mrs. Swanson expressed reservations about deter- mining menus, but agreed that alternatives and use of processed meat should be made under the direction of Mrs. Griffin. Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Spiris agreed to provide alternate choices on the days when pro- cessed meats are on the menu. Dr. Rotberg asked if Lexington would be required to begin a break- BREAKFAST fast program. Both Mr. Maclnnes and Mrs. Griffin responded in the nega- PROGRAM tive due to the lack of qualified applicants. Mr. Maclnnes also asked the committee to oppose the present law requiring such programs. Mr. Spiris presented the school committee with a report outlining EDUCATIONAL a suggested plan for working with the Citizens Advisory Committee. He PROGRAM also suggested that staff and administrators consider the EPSC Report STUDY and make recommendations to the school committee. He then requested COMMITTEE the school committee and C.A.C. meet to decide the major areas of the report that need discussion and clarification. Mrs. Swanson asked the EPSC to set guidelines and establish pri- ority items for discussion. Mr. Wadsworth stated that the school committee was a policy setting body and he would like to hear the views of the advisory committee as they relate to present educational philosophy, suggested changes in phil- osophy and suggestions for implementation. With such responses he felt he could better decide on policy direction. Mr. Michelman agreed that the committee was a policy setting body. He felt that the key sentence in Mr. Spiris's memo was the one stating that the school committee should have sufficient opportunity to discuss the report of the Study Committee. He felt that due to the breadth and richness of the report, more than one discussion session would be needed. Dr. Hoffman then presented his comments on the future role of the E.P.S.C. and its suggested procedure for dealing with the report. He said the future role and discussion should focus on the following: - the achievement of some very clear understandings with the new superintendent to formulate basic policies (curricula correlation, style of management, structure of system) . - the implementation of some other recommendations (curriculum center, curriculum coordinators)