HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-26-LHS-min (2) LEXINGTON
G 4 �Ii, S C 1 10 0 L
Andrew Baker (781) 861-2320, ext. 69102
Interim Principal abakeralexiniztortma.oriz
Lexington High School Site Council Minutes
Monday, February 26th 2024 - 6:00— 7:30 pm
1. Present: Andrew Baker, Karen Fu, Allison Bryant Mantha, Liz Curtin, Walter Richardson,
Suzanne Lau, Lizzy Cook, Karen Griffiths, Bryce Spalding, Tina McBride (community
member).
2. M.1.0 u t e s o ......2 2 2 4. approved
3. .L.. .t...I.S..........B..u.......i.l...d.......i..n. P .)J2!jLp...
�2a: Overview of today's SBC meeting from Andrew.
a. The architect presented spreadsheets of square foot analyses, numbers of classrooms,
offices. Total square footage is something like 440,000 sq ft(current school is around
330,000). Today's report has the number of overall classrooms similar to what we
have now; people should keep in mind that a typical classroom now is around 600
sqft, and the new ones are around 850 sqft. In addition to classroom spaces, MSBA
has allotted 13-14 bigger"laboratory spaces" which can be for various purposes.
b. The presentation included all current designs. The assumption is that the field house
is being renovated as part of the project; this hasn't been voted on by SBC,but that
assumption has taken on a lot of life in their presentations.
c. The architects will move into preliminary designs from this point forward. Slides 5-9
is them experimenting with different adjacencies around the school.
d. They are giving a lot of thought to orientation of school based on solar orientation,
talking about some of the constraints like the wetlands near the field house. Siting
approaches will depend on which type of construction SBC decides to move forward
with
e. different options: option A, upgrading the building, gets very little discussion. Option
B, phased construction in place, renovation and addition got some discussion. There
was also the acknowledgement that you can spend a lot of money for it to take just as
long if not longer than new construction (getting modulars, etc). Option C, new
construction, were the most exciting options. Some included the new school being
connected to the field house, others had the challenge of there having to be some
distance to field house.
f On the slides, the dashed yellow and blue lines were"below the line" components:
things that the community has expressed interest in that MSBA doesn't pay for.
g. SC had a number of questions about how many stories a new school would be: could
it be a 4 story building? The architects didn't dismiss it, but said something about
once you get up to four stories there are other considerations.
h. Question: when will some of the decisions be made to narrow down design? Andrew
says they have to produce A, B, and C for MSBA; the decision of which path to take
will be made in May or June.
Lexington High School 1251 Waltham Street I Lexington,MA 102421
4. Data from I Block stakehad . . attendance
u' Teacher and student groups have been policy during lblocks.
h. Wide-ranging discussion about the attendance policy, what its intended purposes are,
which populations imit trying to reach?
c Discussion nfdifferent issues/reasons for absences
d out nfthe pandemic, strong desire nnpart nfteachers tnhaveongoing
discussion about issues before any onUuy changes to things that affect the cJummrnnm.
They may not be in a place to have a policy change before next year, but will keep
working on it. Some deans opined that ifthey're more transparent about the contracts
they put students on after getting multiple Ns, they might not need tn actually change
policy much. Maybe they could try to establish more immediate consequences for
students when they cut c|umm; maybe there are more restorative processes they can
establish for kids with chronic absences. Maybe they'll go slow tn go fast on this
policy, make sure they get itright.
c Discussion about the difficulty for teachers not knowing about students' absence
issues until after the fact, issues with credits being|nmt affecting umtudent'm
graduation status. Agreed that more transparency for teachers is better.
f Agreement that it's necessary tnhave conversations about absences earlier rather than
later, and the benefit of both immediate and cumulative consequences for
cuts/absences. Question is what those immediate consequences are; more
conversations needed.
g. Two different populations: kids who are taking freebies where they can get them
because they know there's usoft policy, and kids who are genuinely school avoidant
due to some very rou| fear/anxiety/whatever, something keeping them from feeling
safe and able tn do muhnn|. Atone point the TLP had created uschool refusal
assessment to try to tease out why the students vvercm`t coming.
h. Comment that it's very difficult for teachers tn know when kids are out for excused vs
unezcumedreumnnm, day of 8n then they "let the deans handle it', but then ufe"/days
later it's mtU| unezcumed, and it's hard tn determine when to move forward with
consequences nnuteacher level vmnnudean level. Further discussion about the
supportive work that teachers do with the students in the TLP program, and how it
would hebeneficial ifmore nfthe teachers had more information and skills in
addressing absence issues with students. Maybe this could beuPD day subject.
i. Discussion about moving uv/uy from treating it as an academic issue (xddh losing
creditm), and more umubehavioral intervention issue.
5. Group Revising nfSchool Innovation Plan
u. We are halfway through what was u |0year innovation p|un, Andrew imhoping tn at
least give people usense nfwhat has been done with ugoal before Jumpinginto what
hasn't been done. For example, there has been more access tnAPclasses, work nn
placement and implicit bias in placement system, HFA courses in English. Has been
an overall reduction in number of exclusionary practices at school, but students with
special needs/students nfcolor overall are more subject tnthe exclusionary practices.
Said there's ulot that's in Andrew Stephens' plan that im laudable, we should work
towards that
b. Andrew imtrying tn get rid nfjargon, working on concision. The current SIP has
many different ways nfsaying pedagogical approaches, for example: what are the
strategies we should be using in classrooms to support all learners and lift up
struggling learners, and what dn we do if the strategies we're using aren't sufficient to
the student?
c. Discussion of the equity goals in the current SIP; general feeling they're good,but
again concision is necessary. A feeling of inclusion and equity starts with an inclusive
and equitable classroom; how do we get there?What is the design of the lesson,
what's being produced for a class. Andrew says the earth science PLC did a lot of
work on the design of their units to make sure they're accessible to all different types
of learners; wondering if that could be a model for other units?
d. Andrew S had a theory of action reciprocal back and forth between policies and
structures of school and building a community that overall feels inclusive, with
classrooms that also feel inclusive, if you do those two things in harmony they sort of
feed off one another. Classrooms are a microcosm of the entire school.
e. Question about making sure that the kids who went out of CP2 were successful (last
year,the measure of success was "getting rid of CP2"). Andrew thinks that
departments are already in discussions about what levels and what courses serve all
students best. There aren't any departments that are committed to inequity; all are
focusing on making sure that every kid has access to courses in their zone of
proximal development. He's not sure that blanket statement of getting rid of CP2
courses is useful; more how do we take learners who are struggling and bring them
up to success? The data we want to track is how have students grown; ok, we got rid
of a level... what happened?
f Andrew wants to eliminate educational technical jargon. Parents and caregivers
should be able to read it and understand that"ok, this is the direction we should be
moving in .
6. Meeting adjourned 7:30