The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-12-14-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee Friday, December 14, 2018 from 8:30-10:30 a.m. Samuel Hadley Public Services Building,Training Room#221, 201 Bedford Street Master Planning Committee Members Present Dr.Julie Hackett Sara Cuthbertson Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Charles Hornig Peter Rowe Daniel Voss Michael Cronin Daniel Abramson Donna DiNisco Richard Perry Kate Colburn Kathleen Lenihan Alan Levine (Liaison) Joe Pato Sandy Beebee (Liaison) Marina Levit The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington Public Schools. Corresponding powerpoint presentation available and referenced below I. Approval of last meeting's minutes II. Update Enrollment Projections(Maureen Kavanaugh, LPS): presented enrollment projection update including official October 1 numbers, historical enrollments, review of enrollment projection methods and final 10 year enrollment projections that will be used for Master Planning process A. Some members of the group expressed skepticism about projected elementary enrollment trends. Given recent history, LPS suggests exercising caution, but acknowledges that we have to react to the data we have available to us today. Members further pointed out that during LPS enrollment history,there have been declines that were not necessarily predicted by enrollment projection models. B. Donna DiNisco pointed out possible peaks in projected enrollment in the short and long term at each level that we need to consider during our planning (based both on mid line projection and the upper level confidence interval). III. Capacity Strategies(Donna DiNisco, DiNisco Design): reviewed right size criteria (slides 7&8) &capacity for elementary schools(slide 9) A. Elementary Capacity(Slide 10-comparison of capacity against enrollment) 1. When interpreting capacity, what kind of buffer do we want to incorporate into our planning (e.g. use the upper confidence interval,+10 students on top of the upper confidence interval, plan to leave at least 10%capacity)? No decision made on this. 2. Question: Is there a standard used? a) No, depends on what we are trying to accomplish. B. Given projected growth at the middle school, capacity will be a challenge in the longer term. C. At the high school level, core spaces currently undersized. Future enrollment increases are projected, which will exacerbate this problem. 1. Question:Are the current facilities able to handle to current projected peaks? a) Answer: Not well—core spaces already under pressure and also not enough science labs. In the short term,we are adding more science labs to get us to 2021-22, but enrollment growth projected to continue. D. There is and should be flexibility within the buildings in what rooms are being used for what grades and/or purposes; this is necessary to accommodate especially large cohorts or bubbles. IV. Strategy 1–Non-Building Alternatives(slide 17) A. Suggestion: Consider district-wide special education program locations–are they located in the right school (in terms of space)? For example, Fiske's ILP program has the largest space needs in the district. Would it be better situated at one of our larger schools (e.g. Estabrook or Hastings)? a) But,we should keep in mind size of core spaces: might be advantageous to keep in schools with smaller cores spaces (e.g. gym, cafeteria) as a way to keep overall student population size smaller in these schools and minimize pressures on these spaces b) Also opening a new Hastings can have ripple effects on the enrollment in the rest of the system (e.g.families attracted to the new school). c) Some questions for special education: (1) Are we sending out a significant number of students we want to bring back?And should be planning for? (2) Concerning LCP, with new facilities, we have the ability to bring back students from out of district- how many might that apply to? (3) What does special education program enrollment/growth look like? B. Regarding elementary space mining: (e.g. re-purpose art, music and other spaces as general education classrooms) 1. Some members felt this should be taken off the table as an option.They believe this divides the Town, diminishes what schools are able to accomplish, and suggests we do not value all subjects (although students generally spend less time in art and music spaces, for some students this might be the most important hour of their day) 2. Others acknowledged that although they agree this issue can be divisive,they were not sure any thing could be taken off the table. What are the alternatives costs (particularly in cases of short-term enrollment growth)? 3. Also need to think about core spaces; For example, we would run into scheduling challenges related to gym at some schools if student population becomes too large. C. Regarding grade level re-configurations 1. Some grade level configurations at the elementary and middle schools would have an impact on the high school;therefore, they are important to discuss. 2. Moving 5th grade to middle school or 8th grade to high school has the potential to provide relief, but not until we could expand space at the secondary level; not necessarily a viable short-term solution. 3. Discussion on how decisions will be made. For example, if we were to ask the MSBA about including the 8th grade into a high school project, what is the MPC's role in this decision? Do we get a recommendation from MPC and present to school committee,with interaction with other boards? (*Note from JH: if invited into the capital pipeline, MSBA works with the school system on possible creative solutions as part of the process, so doesn't need to be decided for SOI). a) SC members would definitely want to weigh in, after a discussion at MPC fi rst. b) We should consider the social-emotional environment of a much larger high school. c) Do we have the space to expand LHS enough to include 8th grade?We would need to plan for a high school well over 3,000. D. Modulars/Portables 1. Question:Are these considered a short-or medium-term solutions? a) Answer: Depends on the type. The modulars we have used recently are meant as a longer-term solution. b) Note: Costs of modulars have been rising and starting to catch up with brick and mortar solutions, which last longer; however, modulars can be put up faster. E. Program Relocation 1. Question: Could we move the high school LABBB program to another high school?Would this help? a) Yes, but not enough to solve the problem completely. 2. Question: How much space would this open up? a) Need to research to provide an accurate answer. 3. Could we relocate the LABBB program to Central Office? a) Answer: Not enough space at the central office;Also a high school is a more ideal and an inclusive learning environment for these students. 4. Suggestion: Building at Hartwell Ave.for LABBB? V. Strategy 2—Expansion of existing facilities A. "What if's" at the other grade levels have to be done within the context of the cost of the new high school. Should we focus on no build or low cost at the elementary and middle school level? VI. Other Town-Owned Land (slide 22) VII. Other Planning Note/Considerations/Questions A. Costs across all grade levels must be kept in mind. Specifically, we have the very likely cost of a new or expanded high school looming. Financially, we are not going to be able to justify a new high school, a new middle school, and a new elementary. We need to make other choices and consider other options. Somehow it seems the high school is always overlooked. B. Wondering about what level of enrollment triggers various options? VIII. Possible Future Agenda Items: A. Added January 4th meeting (focus on high school level) B. What do we have to do at the high school to accommodate projected enrollment in the short term? C. What land is available (related to high school solutions)?