Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-11-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Advisory Committee Wednesday, December ii, aoa4 from 9:00 -il:oo a.m. Remote Participation via Zoom Attendees:Andrew Baker, Melissa Battite(absent), Sandra Beebe(absent), Fay Chen, David Coelho, Michael Cronin, Rick DeAngelis(absent),Julie Hackett, David Kanter(attended on behalf of Sandra Beebee), Maureen Kavanaugh, Kathleen Lenihan,Alan Levine,Joe Pato,Mark Sandeen, Deepika Sawhney, Michael Schanbacher, Dan Voss The minutes�vere taken by Sara Jorge,the Office Manager to the Lexington Superintendent. The meeting began at g:o3 a.m. Dr. Hackett explained that she updated the Master Planning Compendium by including a section called I��c;�nt I����lc��� �nts. On page 39,the strategies that were discussed at the last Master Planning Committee meeting on October 3i, 2024 were incorporated, including: reconfigure grade spans, acquire town-owned land, replace Bridge and build a new elementary school, utilize the land at Bridge to build a third middle school,build a sma119th grade-only high school,build a small, specialized high school, increase class size, field house space, and create a mechanism to acquire larger land parcels. Dr. Hackett noted that the school department has been receiving outreach from community members about reconfiguring grade spans. She explained that while it sounds good in theory, there are reasons why this can't be done, and those reasons will be documented in the compendium. Except for Bridge and Bowman,the student enrollment in the elementary schools is appropriate and meets its planned operating capacity. Similarly,the enrollment in the middle schools is appropriate and meets its planned operating capacity. It would not be possible to move grade 5 to the middle schools due to current space constraints. Through redistricting and flexible assignment, LPS has balanced the two middle schools better to maximize space. As a result, Diamond has increased its enrollment in the past few years by more than ioo students, relieving some overcrowding pressure at Clarke Middle School. The two middle schools are functioning effectively now with an appropriate planned operating capacity. Given that the two middle schools are already at capacity and are a pinch point,there is no ability to shift elementary students or high school students to the middle schools. Joe Pato and Alan Levine explained that they wouldn't rule out reconfiguring grade spans completely because if we are growing fast and need to shift things around,we could expand with modulars. Maureen Kavanaugh explained that the enrollment projections are staying steady or will be declining. Maureen also pointed out that special education space has increased within our schools, so the space that would be available due to the decline in enrollment is now being used for required special education services. Julie Hackett added that we expanded our ILP program to Estabrook because we were full at Fiske, and now we are full at both. Fay Chen pointed out that Diamond has high numbers in its ILP. Those programs should not be touched, as we are not thinking about expanding the numbers, so they should remain stable at the very least. Kathleen Lenihan explained that the grade configuration brings back redistricting. It is important for people to understand that grade reconfiguration has major pedagogical implications. During redistricting, it took well over a year just to determine which streets would be assigned to which elementary school. Julie Hackett noted that when we get into our small groups,we should prioritize each item with a rating system that ranges from highly recommended or this is our last resort. Andrew Baker explained that it is not preferable for our three-letter programs for students with specialized needs to move off our campus. They like having these programs here at Lexington High School. Alan Levine asked how much physical floor space is needed for students in the ILP program compared to general education? Fay Chen: When students are in the ILP or other program, more floor area space is needed per student than in general education. In a typical class,you could have 2o to 25 students,but specialized programs could have six,possibly with staff support for each student,but she doesn't know how this is structured at the high school level. Andrew Baker explained that there is a similar need at the high school level. There is a classroom and a series of breakout spaces for the program's use. There is a dedicated off'ice for speech and language pathologists and other related service providers who work with students, as well as a dedicated life skills space that students use to build life slcills. There is a small room for PT and OT services.As is the case in elementary and middle schools, almost every student in the program has an adult with them throughout the day. Joe Pato referenced Kathleen Lenihan's comment about grade reconfiguration and redistricting. He indicated that a trigger point needs to be reflected in the strategies, as well as when the work would start, and how long we might expect for that to happen. Alan Levine indicated that it would be helpful to have a document that outlines what the space requirements are in a very high-level way for special education programs in terms of floor area, breakout rooms, and any other space that may not be needed for general education. The document would be useful not only if the school population increases because of new residents and new buildings,but also because the ratio of special education students compared to general education has been changing. It might be a useful tool for a committee like this, even if the school enrollment doesn't change in the total bottom line. Julie Hackett stated that in the past,the desire was to bring children back to the school system to save money from out-of-district placements, and the school department is now curious about whether or not that still is true. Needs are changing and LPS now has a very staff-intensive program with lots of support, so it might be the case that it is equally expensive to have children in in-district specialized programs. There are social costs that matter to the students and the community,but understanding the financial costs of in-versus out-of-district placements is worth exploring. Dr. Hackett reviewed �=�s °��-�1 �f th�1VI�st�r°Fl�nnrn�Gc� ��ndi� with the Master Planning Committee. David Kanter indicated that if a building has space around it, and before we discuss enlarging the structure,he would like to have a positive statement that you have reviewed all functions to show that you have given your due diligence. Julie Hackett added that our planning process should acknowledge what happens currently on sites so people won't be disenfranchised. She also explained that we can always increase class size, as it is the least expensive and most likely strategy for addressing short-term problems. Alan Levine stated that, unfortunately,there are scenarios where larger class sizes should be a long-term solution.With the MSTA zoning bylaw changes,there could be 8,00o new residences, which could mean 4,00o new students, and it could affect operating budgets. Julie Hackett added that it could be 4,00o students or ioo students, so there are many unknowns,which is the challenge. Joe Pato indicated that perhaps we could put together a task force to look for land that is available or could be available for 9+ acre lots in Town. He also noted that each strategy will have pros and cons and challenges and unique scenarios, such as what to do if we see ioo or 500 more students at one grade level.We need to explain how we would apply the tools we identified to resolve that scenario. Julie Hacicett explained that our approach to the Master Plan has been what happens if we have lower than expected enrollments, as expected, or higher than expected enrollment. The Master Planning Advisory Committee then broke into small groups to discuss strategies. Group 2: Group 2 reported that most of their strategies could be short-or long-term, such as sending students out of the district, reconfiguring class sizes, renting or buying space, or building new space or additions. David Kanter explained that we need to add a simple framework for each strategy and a trigger for their implementation. Virtual Group: The Virtual Group agreed that offering double sessions,utilizing the field as space, and a specialized high school would not be ideal or would not work at all. They also discussed the possibility of adding modulars to LHS and grade reconfiguration, but that would work in conjunction with adding more space because there is not enough space at the elementary level to make that work. Andrew Baker explained that the virtual group discussed two things: space mining and class sizes. Regarding space mining at the high school,which is an option, they were talking about areas of the school that, in past conversations,would have been considered way off-limits but might be on the table now,like the use of the library, for instance. The other possible strategy for implementation could be class sizes when it comes to enrollments,which is an ongoing conversation at Lexington High School. Certainly,the Master Planning Advisory Group could help guide that,but those types of decisions happen regularly. It is what we do to prepare a schedule for the school year. Group i: Group 1 discussed moving 60o students out of Lexington High School. In order for that to happen,there would need to be an additional3oo students in each middle school. However, after discussing with Maureen Kavanaugh,we might be able to stretch to add ioo more students but not 300, so we would need more space.We also discussed modulars and the idea of building up at Diamond and Clarke. Mike Cronin said that you cannot build up on those buildings, so that idea was ruled out. Group i reported that this then helped them determine that we needed more school space. Do�ve build a new elementary school, or do�ve leave k-5 alone and add a new middle school,which seems like a better option than disrupting every grade?The middle schools would then be 6-9. Group i also discussed a stand-alone Kindergarten school instead of a stand-alone ninth-grade building. Dr. Kavanaugh noted that increasing class size and small-scale space mining should be the first measures.Then,we move to larger-scale space mining and additions. We just need to be explicit about which of the strategies would be employed as long-term versus short-term solutions. New categories were developed based on group discussion feedback, including: i) changing how the buildings are used now(implemented short-term) 2) renting or buying building space out of the Town's present set of buildings 3)building new space (additions or new buildings)that may involve acquiring land Next Steps The Master Planning Advisory Committee will reconvene in a couple months.Topics to be discussed: i. How much is too much for class sizes? 2. Space mining at LHS 3. Why not a second high school? Joe Pato motioned to approve the Master Planning Advisory Committee minutes from October 3i, 2024.Alan Levine seconded the motion.Julie Hackett took a roll call vote,passed ii-o. Alan Levine motioned to adjourn the meeting at ii:o3 p.m. Michael Schanbacher seconded the motion. Julie Hackett took a roll call vote,passed ii-o. The meeting adjourned at ii:oo a.m.