HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-08-SC-min
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 1
LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Lexington Town Office Building, Selectmen’s Meeting Room
1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Present: Dr. Paul Ash, Superintendent; Margaret Coppe, Chair; Bonnie Brodner, Vice‐
Chair; Members Alessandro Alessandrini, Jessie Steigerwald and Mary Ann Stewart
Absent: Sam Lehn, Student Representative
The Minutes were taken by Jean Curran, Recording Secretary
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m.
I. Call to Order and Welcome:
The Chair invited public comment.
Ben Esty, 4 Ballard Terrace came before the Committee and shared his thoughts and
concerns regarding the PCB testing and air quality at the Estabrook Elementary
School. He appreciates the Committee taking his concerns seriously. Mr. Esty
shared that he made an inquiry to Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities for
additional testing to be performed because the next test date would not be until
November and the results would not be available until late November. Mr. Esty
spoke about Room 4 and the early test results. As the PCB levels continue to rise in
this particular room, he requested additional testing in October and possibly retest
in November. Mr. Esty inquired how much the test costs and was told by Dr. Ash
that each testing costs $14,500, which is a large scale test which includes more than
just one room.
II. Superintendent’s Announcements:
Dr. Ash had no announcements
III. School Committee Member Announcements:
Margaret Coppe reminded everyone about the Community Forum that is being held
on October 10 at 7:30 pm at High School and Co‐Sponsored by School Committee
and other town committees on the Awareness of the Effect of Violent Media.
A week from today, October 15 is the primary in Congressional District 5 to fill
Senator Markey’s seat and all registered voters can vote in the primary.
Mary Ann Stewart shared that it is also the night of a Public Facilities Meeting.
IV. Agenda
1. Lexington High School Space Needs for the Intensive Learning Program
(ILP), Projected Staffing Requirements and Costs
Margaret Coppe spoke before the presentation and shared that the Committee will
be going to a special Town Meeting to seek funding of $7.7 million dollars for the
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 2
modular classrooms to address increased enrollment at the high school. Ms. Coppe
shared that this project has been fast tracked, and the Committee will have to go
before the Town, the Capital Expenditure Committee and the Appropriation
Committee with the rationale for this amount of money and this amount of space.
Dr. Ash shared that the high school enrollment numbers will be increasing by two
hundred (200) students over the next three years. Knowing the high school is
overcrowded, he has been working with the Town Facilities Department and an
architect regarding how many general education spaces will be needed spaces for
the ILP.
Dr. Ash introduced Mrs. Linda Chase, Director of Student Services and Nicole C.
Gardenier, Associate Director ‐ Public Schools Services of the New England Center
for Children located in Southborough, MA. In September, 2012, Mr. Pat Goddard,
Director of Public Facilities presented the actual physical space plan and it was then
that the question of whether there was going to be enough land at the high school to
place modulars arose. She came before the Committee to request money for a
feasibility study. Ms. Chase shared that there are a number of children in the ILP
that will be approaching high school age and provisions for them are needed. Ms.
Chase shared the various programs available in the Lexington School District and
the need to plan for space needs in the future. Ms. Chase then introduced Nicole
Gardenier.
Nicole Gardenier presented her report of the Expansion of ILP at Lexington High
School dated October 8, 2013. Ms. Gardenier shared the (i) Purpose of the Report;
(ii) Methods; (iii) Projected Changes in ILP Population; (iv) Student Population; (v)
Service Delivery Needs; (vi) Current LHS ILP; (vii) Incoming LHS ILP Students; and
(viii) Recommendations – Service Delivery Models, (a) Inclusion, (b) Collaborative
Teaching, (c) Small Group Instruction, (d) Individual Instruction, and (e) Post Grade
12. The next part of the report included (i) Physical Space Requirements and Needs
for each Service Delivery Models; (ii) Table 3 ‐Individualized Instruction/Post Grade
12 Model; (iii) Table 4 Physical Space Recommendations Across Service Delivery
Models; (iv) Table 5 Fall 2014 Construction; (v) Table 6 Fall 2015 Construction; (vi)
Table 7 ILP Teacher Role; (vii) Table 8 ‐ Instructional Models; (viii) Table 9 ‐
Recommended Number of Teachers by Service Delivery Model; (ix) Table 10 ‐
Recommended Support Staff Across Years; (x) Table 11 ‐ FTE for Related Service
Provider across Years; (xi) Table 12 ‐ Recommended BCBA Time Allocation at LHS
ILP; and (xii) Summary.
Ms. Gardenier shared that she has worked in the district for several years and is
knowledgeable about programs in Lexington. The purpose was to project what type
and amount of space would be needed for the ILP at Lexington High School, what
types of programs will be needed and which personnel will be needed. As part of
this report, Ms. Gardenier observed selected ILP Classrooms, interviewed
administrators, faculty and staff and analyzed data for 85 ILP students from 3rd
grade to 12th grade.
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 3
There were questions and comments from the Committee (i) did you talk with
SEPAC; (ii) why did the report not talk about a transition program; (iii) does it make
sense to send post Grade 12 students out of district; (iv) are there current students
who need to use these services and do you feel out of district students would return;
and (v) does it make sense to bring a student back if they are doing well out of
district.
Linda Chase presented the proposed ILP 2014‐2015 (i) cost of In‐House Programs
and (ii) Cost Avoidance for Out‐of‐District Programs. Ms. Chase will be asking for (i)
two more teachers; (ii) nine support staff, and (iii) three related services for a
subtotal of $1,141,535. In town transportation costs are $121,046 and the cost of
in‐district programs is $1,262,581 which is estimated for twenty‐three students
with no new students moving into community. If we needed to send children out of
district (i) the tuition for twenty‐three students would be $2,274,815; (ii) average
day school tuition of $98,905 per student, and (iii) transportation would cost
$254,250, for the total tuition and transportation of $2,529,065 and if LPS offered
in‐house program there would be a cost avoidance of $1,266,484.
There were questions and comments from the Committee (i) what was the
projection in 2006; (ii) is this enough space; (iii) is this the right time to build; (iv)
should the Committee begin discussion a new high school; (v) when programs were
implemented, it was through inclusion and collaborative models and what the
Committee knew could be accommodated; (vi) could money have been placed in a
special education fund; (vii) encouraged the Committee to take a look at out‐of‐
district placements and get a sense to have some understanding when families
consider in‐district options (viii) will there be a Phase II Report; (ix) suggestion to
have parent involvement and to work collaboratively with them; and (x) will the
space currently in use at the high school remain?
Bronte Abraham, 5 Colony Road, shared her thoughts on the report and her own
child’s needs.
Carol Millard, 85 North Street shared her personal experience with her child at
Diamond Middle School and high school programs, space needs, and the need to
have parents involved in the dialogue. Ms. Millard also questioned if there would be
a division of the Diamond and Clarke spaces.
James Synge, 5 Ellen Dana Court, who has a son in the ILP at the high school, shared
his thoughts about children with Asperger’s having sensory needs. He was
concerned that modular classrooms are noisy and wanted to know if that was
considered.
Jennifer Yaar, 15 Wilson Road, SEPAC Coordinator spoke about the goal to
coordinate with parents of students in the elementary and middle schools to get
recommendations.
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 4
2. October 1, 2013 Enrollment Numbers
Dr. Ash presented the 2013‐2014 Enrollment as of October 1, 2013. The Bowman
Elementary School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 543 students; the Bridge
Elementary School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 550 students; the Estabrook
Elementary School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 496 students; the Fiske Elementary
School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 497 students; the Harrington Elementary
School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 420 students; and the Maria Hastings
Elementary School has a total enrollment K‐5 of 422 students. The combined total
enrollment in the elementary schools is 2,928 students.
The Jonas Clarke Middle School, grades 6‐8 has a total enrollment of 867 students;
and William Diamond Middle School, grades 6‐8 has a total enrollment of 792. The
combined total enrollment in the middle schools is 1,659 students.
At Lexington High School, grade 9 has a total of 522 students, grade 10 has a total of
535, Grade 11 has a total enrollment of 482 students and grade 12 has a total
enrollment of 482 students. The combined enrollment at the High School is 2,021
students. Dr. Ash reviewed the projected versus actual enrollment for FY14 as of
October 1, 2013. The enrollment numbers will be posted on the school website.
There were no questions from the Committee.
3. Human Resources Department Update
Robert J. Harris, Assistant Superintendent Human Resources presented the
Lexington Public School Human Resources – Personnel & Program Updates dated
October 8, 2013. Mr. Harris’ presentation included (i) Teacher Turnover FY08‐FY‐
14 was 6.2% in FY14; (ii) Number of Retirees 2000‐2013; in FY13 there were 19
teachers who retired and it was what he expected; (iii) All staff by Race for FY14 (a)
African American Teachers equal 14 (1.8%), other staff equal 29 (3.2%) for a
combined total of 41 (2.6%); (b) Asian Teachers equal 30 (4.4%), other staff equal
30 (3.4%) for a combined total of 60 (3.8%); (c) Hispanic Teachers equal 13 (1.9%),
other staff equal 17 (1.9%) for a combined total of 60 (3.8%); (d) White Teachers
equal 622 (91.9%), other staff 819 (91.5%) for a combined total of 1,441 (91.71%);
(iv) all new hires by gender and race showing a percentage of system‐wide new
hires who represent a racially diverse population (a) FY12 6.4%, (b) FY13 8.2% and
(c) FY14 12.1%; (v) all new teachers & administrators by gender and race showing a
percentage of system‐wide new hires who represent a racially diverse population
are (a) FY12 4.8%, (b) FY13 10.0% and (c) FY 14 12.5%; (vi) Percent Distributions
of Teacher Absences by Reason for FY12, FY 13 and FY14 (the largest number is due
to sick leave for teachers, staff and dependents which represents 47% due to
Lexington’s Professional Learning Program (PLP) 25% of teacher absences go to
support teacher learning in the district; over past three years there is no real
change; and (vii) Teacher Induction Program for FY14.
There were questions and comments from the Committee regarding (i) does the
new teacher induction program work with Leonard Swanton, K‐12 Professional
Development Coordinator and Carol Pilarski, Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum, Instruction and Professional Development in implementing the new
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 5
system; (ii) will there be more support needed due to the new supervision and
evaluation program implemented by the state; (iii) would like to hear updates on
how the evaluation program is going; (iv) teacher turnover – are there any trends or
positions that are turning over more frequently or more challenging for Lexington;
(v) what are floaters and extra support; (vi) definitions of the various categories of
vacancies; (vii) Can Professional Learning be offered at other times; (viii) wish LPS
was more aggressive in hiring a more diverse workforce; (ix) define teacher
turnover; (x) what are the other categories for new hires other than teachers; (xi)
are there things that would make LPS more attractive to younger teachers; (xii)
update the Committee on bringing back Lexington students to teach here in town;
(xiii) wish the diversity numbers were higher; and (xiv) are there any relationships
with colleges and universities (interns).
4. Superintendent’s Evaluation for 20132014 – Indicators for Each
Standard
The Committee engaged in a discussion for the Superintendent indicators and
elements for (i) Standard I – Instructional Leadership; (ii) Standard II –
Management & Operations; (iii) Standard III ‐ Family and Community Engagement;
and (iv) Standard IV ‐ Professional Culture.
The Committee chose the following indicators (i) Standard I, B3 – Diverse Learners’
Needs; (ii) Standard II, A3 – Student Safety, Health, and Social and Emotional Needs
and possibly C1 – Time for Teaching and Learning and C2 – Time for Collaboration;
(iii) Standard III, B2 ‐ Family Collaboration and C2 – Culturally Proficient
Communication; and (iv) Standard IV, F 1‐3 – Managing Conflict (a) Response to
Disagreement, (b) Conflict Resolution, and (c) Consensus Building.
The Committee was in favor of leaving the discussion at this point and agreed to
email the Chair with what has been approved and then focus on the remaining
items.
5. Vote to Approve Superintendent’s Professional Practice and Student
Learning Goals
The Committee engaged in a discussion regarding Dr. Ash’s Goal Setting Form
submitted to the Committee. The discussion focused on (i) the amount of time spent
visiting teachers classrooms; (ii) has Dr. Ash spoken with Carol Pilarski, Phyllis
Neufeld, President, Lexington Education Association (LEA) and the principals about
visitations, shared walk through and shared observations; (iii) would there be any
added burden to teachers on being observed; and (iv) should the Committee
postpone the vote until next School Committee meeting.
Dr. Ash shared that he wrote his individual goals and has tried to be responsive to
the Committee on what he is committing to do to achieve goals going forward. Dr.
Ash stated that he will work with his staff to make sure goals have been met. There
is data he can show to the Committee.
SC Meeting 10.08.13 Page 6
Motion to take the Superintendent Professional Practice Learning Goals
to the Next School Committee Meeting (Stewart, Steigerwald) The Motion
was Approved (5‐0)
6. Vote to Appoint Two School Committee Members to Serve on the Ad Hoc
Committee on Youth at Risk
Alessandro Alessandrini and Margaret Coppe have been working with Bill Blount
and the Board of Selectmen and they indicated they would like to be the two School
Committee members to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee on Youth at Risk.
Motion to Appoint Alessandro Alessandrini and Margaret Coppe to be
the Two Members to Serve on the Ad Hoc Committee on Youth at Risk
(Stewart, Brodner) The Motion was Approved )5‐0)
V. Consent Agenda
1. School Committee Member Reports
a. Liaison Report for the PPC
Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item 1(a) (Alessandrini, Brodner)
The Motion was Approved (5‐0)
VI. Adjourn
Motion to Adjourn (Steigerwald, Stewart) The Motion was Approved (5‐0)
The Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
The next meeting of the School Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, October 22, 2013, at
7:30 p.m. in the Town Offices Building, Selectmen’s Meeting Room, 1625 Massachusetts
Avenue.
Materials: Meeting Agenda; Lexington Public Schools – Expansion of ILP Programs at LHS
dated October 2, 2013; Lexington Public Schools 2013‐2014 Enrollment as of October 1,
2013; Lexington Public Schools Human Resources – Personnel and Program Updates dated
October 8, 2013; Superintendent Rubric At‐A‐Glance; Goal Setting Form for Dr. Ash; Liaison
Report for the PPC dated October 2, 2013 from Jessie Steigerwald
Voted by the School Committee December 19, 2013