HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-08-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee
Friday, February 8,2019 from 8:30-10:30 a.m.
Lexington Public Schools Central Office, Upper-Level Conference, 146 Maple Street
Master Planning Committee Members Present:
Dr.Julie Hackett Marina Levit
Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Sara Cuthbertson
Peter Rowe Charles Hornig
Michael Cronin Daniel Voss
Donna DiNisco Daniel Abramson
Kate Colburn
Kathleen Lenihan Alan Levine (Liaison)
Joe Pato Sandy Beebee (Liaison)
Lexington High School Staff Present:Andrew Stephens, Avon Lewis (current LEA President)
The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington
Public Schools.
Corresponding powerpoint presentation and word documents available and referenced below
I. Discuss LHS short-term "strategies": Principal Andrew Stephen and Donna DiNisco, DiNisco
Design, walked members through LHS spacing mining options and recommendations (see
corresponding powerpoint &document)
A. Goal to space mine as much as possible within the building; also recommending that we
use scheduling and furniture choices to improve space use
B. With increase in total population, expecting increases in other areas (e.g. English
Language Learners); need to make sure there is enough space to provide appropriate
supports for students
1. Similarly as enrollment increases, staffing will likely increase in some way; need
to keep in mind when thinking of the budget
2. Must provide for academic spaces, space for administrative needs (planning
spaces, offices, conference rooms, etc,.) and student support services (e.g.
counseling, social workers);
3. Parking is also a need
C. LHS Space Mining Options& Recommendations document summarizes areas that could
be "mined'/repurposed; Principal Stephens provided descriptions and answer questions
about each space (e.g. where they were located, what they could be used for and
noted challenges)
1. Remaining challenge: how to relieve pressure on core spaces, including cafeteria
space? Briefly discussed 3 vs 4 lunches
2. Recommend that we phase space mining options over time as we need them
3. Next year: have opportunities to create more classrooms in space that is
currently used by IT, ILP (need to consult with Special education first), for faculty
planning/prep space; also plan already in place to expand science
Q: Space needs for the general special education population?
A: When thinking about space mining,first identifying areas that are available. And then
thinking about how that space needs to be used.This would include any need to expand
resource room space or other special education programming. We believe we can
absorb special education population increases in our current space.
Q: Space needs for a future transition program?
A: Would like to host this kind of program, but space at LHS constrains our ability to do
this right now.
Q: Would hosting this type of program at LHS save money(compared to sending
students to an outside program)?
A: Very little; costs are comparable
Q:Are LABBB enrollments taken into account in LHS enrollments & enrollment
projections?
A: Need to verify this; If not, will update enrollment information to include and/or
re-calculate
D. Next Steps:
1. Meet with Special Education regarding space needs and ILP program; Also need
to meet with LABBB staff to discuss space needs (including ways in which current
space is or is not working); looking for logical opportunities to consolidate where
future program numbers are expected to be low and space underutilized, but
need to be sure program and services are not compromised in any way
2. Suggestion to conduct a tour of LHS to experience the space (more compelling
than floor layouts)
II. Draft Statement of Interest(SOI)for LHS
A. Walked members through the document and gave an overview of the content; SOI
incorporates information from many sources (previous LHS NEASC reports; used Hasting
SOI as one model, numbers from the Enrollment Advisory Group, etc.), plus new content
to clearly make our case
1. We don't yet know whether there will be anew high school or a renovation of
the existing building; this will be determined when we go through the process
B. MPC member formed small groups to closely review sections of the SOI and then
provided feedback& edits; members may also email comments &suggestions; highlights
of discussion included:
1. Background & History: had some corrections, but basic structure is correct
2. Priority 1: suggest highlighting the security issues; are there other instances
where the building design impedes evacuation? Suggest adding in more
examples of accessibility challenges and take out reference to town crime
statistics
3. Priority 2: needed a better understanding of time on learning issues; suggesting
that we underscore the current time on learning and be more explicit; suggest
adding climate control & noise issues; suggesting more explicit definition of
what the outcomes/benchmarks we want to get out of the building and where
we are; perhaps making notes of the fact that students must carry around all
their books & belongings throughout the day
4. Priority 7: offering a lot of programs currently, but would like to include a
transition program for special education students, expand science offerings (e.g.
robotics, engineering), expand/improve vocational connections, do more
project-based learning(which can require larger, more flexible spaces) and
improve our PE spaces; ability to address time on learning is linked to space
5. Member note: design capacity definitions have changed over time; earlier
design capacity definitions did not include the specialized spaces that have
become standard aspects of educational programming; 1850 design capacity
mentioned in SOI is based on updated standards
C. Next Step: Board of Selectmen will review draft SOI on February 11
III. Minutes approved for January 11,2018
IV. Possible Future Agenda Items:
A. Tour of space at LHS