Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-20-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Committee Tuesday, November 20, 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 Joe Pato Dr. Maureen Kavanaugh Marina Levit Peter Rowe Sara Cuthbertson Michael Cronin Charles Hornig Donna DiNisco Kate Colburn Sandy Bebe (Liaison) Kathleen Lenihan The minutes were taken by Maureen Kavanaugh, Director of Planning and Assessment for the Lexington Public Schools. I. Presentation from Donna DiNisco(see powerpoint for more details): included A. History of previous planning decisions (e.g. 2015 consensus plan, prior building projects) B. Existing facilities review: provided a detailed breakdown of space within each school building and layout of school sites 1. Elementary highlights: a) On slide 15 Harrington specifications assume LPC relocation and Hastings is based on new school specifications; Red text indicates a space is undersized given current enrollment; Most elementary facilities have been updated fairly recently;The space needs related to special education and other supports within the educational program may not be well understood by all members of the community; Previous challenges with art & music space have fluctuated by building and enrollment year to year 2. Middle school highlights: a) Almost the same size building footprints, but sites are different; Previous use of scheduling and space use had varied between the two schools; both buildings now take the same approach to classroom sharing among teachers, maximizing space use at both schools; Some spaces are specialized and cannot be easily shared (e.g. science labs,vocational tech, music and art spaces) 3. High school highlights: a) Series of additions over time, open campus design (i.e. several buildings on one site, students/staff must walk outside to move between buildings); Provided comparison of existing facility against MSBA guidelines (slide 35) 4. Expansion to buildings may be limited by site topography,flood plains and conservation requirements (i.e. wetlands); Any expansion should also consider location of sewer lines, storm drains,gas lines, etc. (these can be moved, but should be considered during planning especially when an existing building must remain occupied); Some sites have geothermal wells (Fiske, Harrington, new Hastings)which will impact expansions. 5. Additional available sites owned by school department: a) Old Harrington School (current central office) b) Laconia Street (challenges include no major access roads; have to use smaller neighborhood roads to access site; extremely steep topography, includes existing walking trails, and privately owned parcels within the site) c) 173 Bedford St(old Liberty mutual; currently designed as office space) C. Facilities capacity based upon class size policy, program & equity and district-wide special education programs 1. When determining a building's capacity(or what we have been referring to as a building's "right size"), we must take into account the full educational program (e.g. ELL&special education needs, gym &cafeteria size, art and music spaces) 2. Previously we have used an average elementary class size of 21.5 students for longer term planning 3. At the middle school level we have planned based on team size; we have used an average team size of 86 for longer term planning 4. It is believed special education is approximately 14%of the general education population and grows proportionately with enrollment. When discussing opportunities to introduce other special education programs into the district it was determined the are no other programs that could currently be brought back into the district (as opposed to being serviced out of district) D. Review of elementary enrollment projections to existing capacity 1. Used preliminary enrollment projections for review; It is important to note LPS is still refining these; We currently do not have confidence in the 10 year projections based on the MSBA method a) Enrollment Advisory Group met on Friday(11/16/18);The group came up with ideas for alternative approaches and new numbers are expected for the next Master Planning Committee meeting in December 2. Slide 41 includes the optimal "right size" for each elementary building (with the goal of enhanced space equity across buildings): a) Bowman - 24 general education rooms or 516 students, b) Bridge- 24 general education rooms or 516 students c) Estabrook-27 general education rooms or 581 students d) Fiske - 19 general education rooms or 409 students e) Harrington (after LCP relocation) -24 general education rooms or 516 students f) Hastings (new) - 30 general education rooms or 645 students 3. Review of enrollment against capacity points to current overcrowding at Bowman, Bridge and Fiske (slide 45) 4. High school: current projections suggest significant future increases (about 267 students over the next 5 years); still refining longer term projections Q: How much cushion should we include in our planning? A: A decision for the community to consider- Previous planning efforts have included 10-15%cushions (e.g. previous redistricting from 2006 was based on a 90%capacity for each building) Q:Trends among special education and ELL populations? A: Special education has remained relatively steady and we are generally looking for opportunities to create more inclusive programs for these students; ELL population growing; Both are important to take into account Q:(Directed to LEA president)Thoughts about class size from a teacher perspective at the high school level? A: Talked about experience as a high school science teacher-AP class sizes are often very large and physically crowded; CP1 &2 classes smaller, but these may include additional adults in the room (e.g. aides, classes co-taught by multiple teachers); layout of cafeterias are inefficient, lunches are very crowded and students eating in the hallway; fieldhouse may appear large as far as specifications, but there are often many classes being run at the same time in this space Q: (Directed to members of Town boards)Are there any other parcels we should aware of? A: Town owns a number of parcels, but some may be currently used for other purposes or otherwise restricted; We can look at this more closely; Land swaps might be possible. II. Discussion on possible solutions given low, medium and high future enrollments A. Options to consider: short and long term, build and no build options and any other ideas (e.g. re-purposing/mining space within the buildings, continued use of flexible school assignment policies, redistricting) B. Group brainstorm of all possible solutions: 1. Within the existing buildings, if there were very short term enrollment increases, temporary re-purposing or mining of elementary spaces (e.g. Literacy rooms, art or music rooms); wouldn't want to rely on these to deal with more "permanent" or longer term changes in enrollment 2. If there is future enrollment declines at the elementary level -taking Bridge or Bowman (the older of the elementary school buildings) out of service for replacement and/or using as a swing space a) How large of school could we build here? b) The Bridge site has the least restrictions 3. Change in grade configurations a) Ex:Third middle school +add 5th grade to all middle schools (creating 5 -8 middle schools) b) Move 8th grade to high school 4. For any large school, we can think about how we structure the experience to create smaller communities within schools (e.g.Teams at the middle school, consider"house" structure at high school) 5. Regarding a third middle school (All similarly sized schools or varying in size (e.g. two larger and one smaller) 6. Build a second high school (two similarly sized high schools or one larger and one smaller high school - perhaps with specialized programing (e.g. focus on the arts)) 7. Using old Harrington for a new school 8. Laconia as a possible school site? a) Additional notes about this site: About 10 acres of land; challenges include topography, poor access to the site, heavily used by recreation, nearby neighborhood may opposed the idea of a large school there; wondering if there is any private/public partnership opportunities with adjacent landowners and/or possible land swap? 9. Other land swap opportunities?Wondering about other Town landholdings (though this process may be slow and time consuming); a few examples: a) Meagerville (between Cedar and Reed St; currently unbuilt conservation land previously owned by school department): b) Sutherland (near Arlington land) Q: When is the last time Lexington completed this kind of land swap? A: Members could not recall. Potential future items: I. Brief update on enrollment and projections II. Continue brainstorming solutions/responses to enrollment changes III. Review of old school sites and/or available Town owned land?