Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-16-SC-PMRS-minLexington School Committee's Policy Manual Subcommittee March 16, 2015 at7pm Upper Conference Room Central Office, 146 Maple Street Attendance: Subcommittee members Jessie Steigerwald Chair, Judy Crocker Community members: Tom and Marisa Defay, Carol Monzillo, Kevin Johnson 1. Public Hearing on School Committee Mission /Vision Statement and Homework Policies Ms. Steigerwald called the hearing to order at 7:16pm. Ms Crocker explained the protocol of the policy hearing. The School Committee Policy Manual Subcommittee (SCPMS) would like to devote one hour of its regularly scheduled March 16, 2015 meeting to those who wish to present their opinions on the policies of Mission /Vision Statement and Homework. The purpose of this hearing is only for School Committee Subcommittee members to gather information from the community. Therefore, its members will not deliberate or debate the hearing topic. In order to provide ample and equal opportunity for all residents wishing to express their views on this topic, comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Ms. Steigerwald introduced the history behind the current Mission /Vision and Homework Policies. The former involved the Superintendent working with upper level administrators to draft a new version 1. Following this, a small group including teachers, SC representatives, and school principals drafted version 2. The next tier of comments for version 3 of the draft document is from all staff, Site Based Site Council, and public hearings. The SCPMS has been working with consultant Jim Hardy of Massachusetts Association of School Committees to review all LPS policies during FY15. MASC dos not have a recommended Homework Policy because the topic is complex and homework philosophies vary widely between communities. Tom and Marisa Defay A) Homework: They feel that in a general sense, homework content and quantity for the middle and lower high school grades are fine. They find it manageable when students grasp good time management skills. They understand from others that junior and senior parents have a different perspective. They firmly believe that homework should be judged as quality over quantity. B) The current version contains very little about the student perspective. They expect students to challenge themselves versus the current top -down administrative approach where only teachers challenge the students. Students should be empowered and confident to choose the goals that they want to strive for. They feel that course selection should involve whatever level students are comfortable with so that the course content produces less stress. They would like the district to empower students to challenge themselves at a level where they are comfortable and this premise is missing from the current policy. The hearing recessed at 7:27pm. SCPMS members engaged in a dialogue with attending parents on High School class structure and science curricula. Additional parents arrived so that the hearing was called back into session at 7:48pm. Carol Monzillo A) Homework: She strongly feels that there is too much homework. She expressed interest in Finland educational model where no homework is given and testing is minimal. The outcome to this approach is that it produces less stress. She also advocates no homework at the elementary level. She would rather use after school time to become more complete human beings. Kevin Johnson A) Homework: The time commitment for homework is much larger than what current policy suggests as guidelines. He would like to have a study performed that involved time measurement of length of assignments versus homework quantity. Ms. Steigerwald called the hearing adjourned at 8:03pm. 2. Section K: Community Relations: KI Visitors to Schools Mr. Johnson is a member of the Parent and Family Engagement Subcommittee and wished to review any progress made with the implementation of its recommendations. It was unclear if the Committee was dissolved and that will be investigated. His handout is attached. He spoke of the history of class visitation for a student with an IEP. Parents have been refused visitation requests to a student class in order for that parent to observe suitability of the program for that student. The law later stated this is indeed appropriate for students with IEP's. Such verbiage was therefore eliminated from the 2006 -7 LHS Handbook. Mr. Johnson's handouts include communication recommendations made by the subcommittee and reviewed which have been adapted to date. While good progress has been made, he believes further improvements can be made. These include: • Current availability of translation services including website pages • Staff respond to emails within 1 day • Assignments are now available online • Online grade reporting of progress reports However, subcommittee recommendations still in progress include: • System -wide guidelines need to be adopted. Currently, the communication recommendations apply only to high school and not middle school students. • SEPAC proposal wants biweekly reports to resource teachers. • The new guidelines indicate that staff and parents can gain access but parents of IEP students feel that semi - quarterly updates are too infrequent. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm. Respectfully submitted, Judy Crocker