1976-07-06-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 140 July 6, 1976 3. Should all the schools open at the same time or should we pro- ject a phasing schedule? 9. Are the small schools educationally superior or not? He felt that a consensus of school committee was needed and that each of these policies should be discussed and then run through a com- puter. He requested members write out a series of ideas or questions and discuss them. M . Michelman commented that it seemed sensible that answers would have to be arrived at before a decision could be made on the alternatives of closure consolidation or keeping all the schools open. He said the school committee should have the advice of the educational professionals and suggested areas for exploration such as the increasing demands for space for tutoring, therapeutic activities, special needs, and curricu- lum resource center. He also suggested examination of any relation be- tween congestion level and quality of program. He said these may not be questions that a computer could answer, but certainly felt that the professional educator should assist and the school committee should discuss them. He suggested that the school committee discuss these after August 3. Dr. Rotberg said that the committee should be very careful of the time parameters due to the depth of questions. He felt many people were interested and there should be provisions for others to comment. Mrs. Swanson felt that redistricting should be a focus, also. Mr. Brown said he had made a request several months ago for a listing of the spaces and uses in the schools and had not seen the list. Dr. Lawson said that he did not know of it but would check with Mr. Spiris regarding the list. Dr. Lawson then said that he would suggest the school committee members visit all the schools with him as the question of school closings or consolidation is explored. He felt that agree- ment should be reached on policies dealing with the present program and that all programs need to be reviewed. Mrs. Swanson closed the discussion by asking the members of the school committee to formulate questions. ;.hese would be discussed at future meetings. The Superintendent in conjunction with Mr. Saulsberry, METCO METCO PROPOSA Coordinator, presented the METCO proposal. The proposal was an outline of two separate budgets of state funding, to cover the possibility that additional funding may become available to Lexington as it has in the past. Mr. Michelman questioned the differences in the budgets and asked what would happen if additional funds were received. Mr. Saulsberry responded saying that the funds would be used in the area of workshops and tutoring programs. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent it was VOTED: to accept the METCO Budget as recommended. (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) •