Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-01-SC-min1 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE Tuesday, November 1, 2016 Town Hall, Selectmen’s Meeting Room 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA Present: Chair, William Hurley; Vice Chair, Alessandro Alessandrini; Judy Crocker; Eileen Jay; Jessie Steigerwald; Superintendent, Dr.Czajkowski; Student Representative, Matt Campos The minutes were taken by Sara Calvino, Executive Assistant to the School Committee and Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent The meeting convened at 7pm Call to Order and Welcome: Chair, Bill Hurley called the meeting to order, and introduced committee members. Public Comments: • Mark Anderson, 2 Thoreau Rd. – Under the METCO Program, Lexington buses and provides educational services to about 250 Boston students. The cost of this program is about $5.6 million each year, over and above a $1.6 million grant from the state. With Lexington no longer being a predominately white school, Mr. Anderson believes the METCO Program violates the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act. • Jenny Richlin, 36 Sherburne Rd. – Ms. Richlin has concerns regarding the feedback that was composed from the Buffer zone forums. Ms. Richlin attended both buffer zone forums from start to finish. Residents understand the need for buffer zones and would support buffer zones, but only if there could be a limit to two schools for each child to be assigned too. She urges the committee to listen to people that spoke at the forums. • Mary Havran, 6 Foster Rd. – Ms. Havran attended the buffer zone forums and did not feel the overview reflect what the general attendees had said at the meeting. Many of attendees agreed that the two buffer zones were not mentioned and with living in the city center, Ms. Havran would like to see that they are limited to two buffer zones just like any other area of the city. • Kathleen Lenihan, 60 Bloomfield St. – Ms. Lenihan is a new member of the student assignment committee but is only speaking for herself not for the committee. The buffer zone policy as currently written is very broad to give the committee flexibility. Some flexibility is great but isn’t necessarily too helpful for someone who is going to be working on this committee. It would be helpful to be limited to two or three schools at the max to have parameters as we work out these maps. • Jim Lane, 650 Garden Way – Mr. Lane was very pleased to see the traffic patterns around Diamond Middle School on the agenda. Mr. Lane would like to hear how the 3 lane proposal is more beneficial that the 2 lane as he is for the 2 lane proposal only. Superintendent’s Announcement: • Ms. Kelly Chase is doing quite well; home recovering and will be on email this week and back at work soon. Ms. Chase sends her regards and thanks everyone for the cards, the emails and well wishes. • The Superintendent awarded three students the award of academic excellence. School Committee Member Announcements: 2 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 A. Alessandrini: Invited the Community to the School Committee Meeting on November 15th in Boston for the METCO Program. J. Crocker: Ms. Crocker attended the Library Trust Meeting and was at the opening of the transformed spaces at Cary Library. She thanked everyone at the Library and the community for contributing to this event. Ms. Crocker thanked Ms. Lipsitz and Ms. DiNisco for having a very nice workshop with the community regarding the Hasting Project. The Lexington School Committee will be attending the MASC conferences this week. A week from today please vote, doesn’t matter how you vote just vote. W. Hurley: The Lexington Education Foundation Grantee reception awarded around 30 teachers grants for their professional learning. Mr. Hurley thanked the LEF for the phenomenal work that they do. J. Steigerwald: We do have a shared bus provided by the Superintendent’s office for people that would like to attend the November 15 School Committee Meeting in Boston. Please contact our secretary to reserve your spot on the bus. Ms. Steigerwald thanked the retailer association who held their annual trick or treating event. With all the news of scary clowns this provided the Lexington Community with a safe daytime activity. Question 2 on the ballot: School Committee voted unanimously to not support charter schools; Ms. Steigerwald would have also agreed with the School Committee. She is a fan of many Charter Schools but this particular proposal will take away funds from public schools. M. Campos: As a high schooler that uses the teen center very often, Mr. Campos appreciates the new space at the Library. He thanked the School Committee for supporting it and the Town for providing it. Consent Agenda: 1. Vote to Approve and Not Release Executive Session Minutes of April 4, 2016 2. Vote to Approve the School Committee Minutes of April 4, 2016 3. Vote to Approve the School Committee Minutes of October 18, 2016 Motion to approve consent agenda items 2&3 as amended. (Hurley/Steigerwald) The Motion was approved (5-0). Mr. Hurley announced that he would be taking the Agenda Items out of order. Agenda: 1. – Agenda Item: Hasting Educational Program Dr. Czajkowski read a letter from Louise Lipsitz to the School Committee. To date Ms. Lipsitz has held Neighborhood meetings with parents and abutters to solicit input on the location of the building on the site. The Hastings Leadership Team weighed in on their general vision for a new school in spring 2016. The Department Heads reviewed the draft Educational Program and provided their input on September 28, 2016. Hastings teachers offered their ideas for many of the spaces on October 20, 2016. Hastings parents and neighbors provided their input in the evening of October 20, 2016. Ms. Donna DiNisco of DiNisco Design and the Hastings School Principal, Louise Lipsitz presented the Hastings School Educational Program, Space Summary and a PowerPoint presentation that outlined the timeline, the MSBA Standards for the Educational Program and the next steps in the Hastings School building project process. As part of the Preliminary Design Program, the MSBA requires that Lexington study three options for the Hastings School. DiNisco Design will continue to study all options and will be submitting the School Committee’s recommendation in January to the MSBA. The MSBA would consider the Reno / Addition option as long as it is demonstrated as to why it does or does not meet the needs. 3 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 The new Hastings design allows for the current ILP program to grow. This new space also allows for professional development use and would be available district wide. There will be enough storage within the school to have proper use of the stage. As this is the early stage of design, discussions for the new building are being had around an indoor green house, project space, security and transportation needs. The School Committee thanked Ms. DiNisco and Ms. Lipsitz for this report. The School Committee moves to accept the Educations Program in support of the MSBA Preliminary Design Program for the Hastings School to meet the needs of an enrollment of 645 students in kindergarten through fifth grades. (Alessandrini/ Steigerwald) The Motion was approved 5-0. 2. – Agenda Item: LCP Phase I Report There will be a School Committee Meeting on Monday, November 7th to discuss the LCP and the High School HVAC. There will no longer be a vote required for this agenda item, as a further discussion will be had on Monday. Donna DiNisco of DiNisco Design and Director of Facilities, Pat Goddard, presented the phase on evaluation for a permanent location for the Lexington Children’s Place Program. The presentation included a review of the five concepts for a location of the LCP: Harrington School, Old Harrington, new facility on the Harrington Property, Pelham, and Laconia. Concept A: Renovation to the current Harrington School. This would increase capacity for LCP but also two more classrooms for elementary as well; cost for site parking would be seven million. This scenario would be cost beneficial, as both schools would share the same nurse and custodial staff. This concept would have significant disruption to occupants during construction and would not allow for the Harrington Elementary school to expand should it need to in the future. Ms. Crocker found the infrastructure improvement cost to be unreasonable. Concept B: Renovation to the Old Harrington School. This concept would need a new roof, new windows, and sprinklers to bring the building up to code to be ADA compliant. This would allow Harrington Elementary School to regain the four classrooms that are currently being used for LCP. Having the LCP on the lower level of the CO building would displace seventeen staff members from their offices. Ms. DiNisco believes that the gym could be organized into workstations for those seventeen staff members. This scenario would not be able to accommodate professional development, PLC or any other programs that use CO everyday. The cost for site parking would be seven million. This scenario would be cost beneficial, as both schools would share the same nurse and custodial staff. Mr. Alessandrini asked if the new Hastings would have the space for PLC meetings and professional development to make up for this lost space at Central Office. Ms. DiNisco explains that there will be space at Hastings in the Literacy Library but out sourcing the PLC and professional development to the whole district could be an option. Ms. Crocker points out to the Committee that the old Harrington building is already sixty-five years old and whether it’s worth putting this large amount of money into the building. The Committee is due to receive a report of the condition of the old Harrington building in December. Concept C: New facility on the Harrington site. In comparison to concept A and B, this would have the least amount of disruptions to occupants in the CO building and the Harrington School. This scenario would be cost beneficial, as both schools would share the same nurse and custodial staff. Ms. Steigerwald asks if the LCP could be a two-story building as opposed to one to possibly house more of the Central Office on the second floor. Mr. Hurley added that if a two-story building is feasible possibly moving Kindergarten to the second floor for easier transition between the two grades. This would free up 4 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 more space at the Harrington Elementary School. Mr. Alessandrini finds that adding a second story to the LCP for Kindergarten could be problematic for core space, cafeteria space and gym space. Dr. Czajkowski would like to see the wasted space in the front of Central Office to be used for additional parking. Concept D: New facility on Laconia Street. On this site, there is sufficient room for a 20,000 square foot LCP Program and parking for seventy-five cars. This would alleviate a significant amount of congestion with traffic and parking on the Harrington site. This concept would be designed for the LCP Program with a contained playground. This site has an unknown development time, and is very isolated with no second route for evacuation. This concept would require its own nurse and custodial staff. Ms. Crocker inquired about the grade of Webb Street and the possibility of using the second identified access off of Solly’s Way. Concept E: Renovation to current facility on Pelham Street. This concept would require a complete evaluation PCBs, asbestos and lead. This space would need a new roof, new windows, and sprinklers to bring the building up to code to be ADA compliant. This property would allow for an expansion in the future for a possible community center or a larger LCP Program should it grow. This space would be centrally located in the district. This concept would require its own nurse and custodial staff. Mr. Alessandrini would like to know the status of the Pelham Street location before moving forward. Dr. C explained that she would be interested in studying the freestanding two-story building at the Harrington site and also the Pelham Street site. Ms. Billings-Fouhy is excited about all the possibilities that can happen at the Pelham Street site, but also loves being close to the Harrington Elementary School as long as the congestion is addressed. Either option would work for her and the Lexington Children’s Place. Ms. Jay asked Ms. DiNisco if she foresees any of these concepts causing constraints to adding more elementary space in the future. Ms. DiNisco explains that they would not recommend any more development for an elementary school on the Harrington site. Laconia is an option for elementary space. 3. – Agenda Item: Diamond Permanent Traffic Plan Recommendation Dr. Czajkowski highlighted the series of meetings that were held on the Diamond permanent traffic plan. Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, Ian Dailey and Diamond Middle School Principal, Jennifer Turner presented feedback and options for the Permanent Traffic Plan for Diamond Middle School. The updated alternative traffic plan includes a third access lane on the Hancock Street side of the property to allow flexibility for both parents and buses to access the site from both the Hancock Street entrance and the Sedge Road entrance. Mr. Goddard explained that the estimated cost of $900,000 for the traffic proposal should be managed under the initial budget but it is still early in the construction project. Ms. Crocker is very concerned that this is another million dollars of unnecessary cost. Because there are two strong viable entrances to this building, she would have hoped we could of worked something out without having to spend this kind of money. She also expressed concerns about how the site will be mitigated for traffic management using staff. Mr. DiNisco explained that if the road is not expanded now than the School Committee will be re-spending money to re-do the entire road in the future. Dr. Czajkowski and the School Committee applaud the efforts of everyone involved in this project. 5 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 Move that the School Committee approve the design funds for a third access lane on the Hancock Street side of Diamond Middle School as outlined in the attached proposal and plans. The Motion was approved 4-1(Hurley/Alessandrini), with J. Crocker voting against. 4. – Agenda Item: MCAS Update The MCAS update will be had at a subsequent School Committee Meeting. 5. – Agenda Item: Alternative Plan to Assess Student Assignment and Space Superintendent, Dr. Mary Czajkowski reviewed the existing tools that are used to help manage student enrollment and capacity needs; the Enrollment Working Group (EWG) and Monthly Enrollment Reports, Student Assignment Committee, and Redistricting. With the current space capacity study (LCP, elementary schools, Central Office), Capital Projects (modulars, middle schools, Hastings), Central Registration, and policy language changes to Attendance Area (JC) and Student Assignment (JCA), these projects and changes would alleviate the need for buffer zones at this time. Dr. Czajkowski would only be using the flexibility of moving students for newly enrolled students to the district not current students. Ms. Steigerwald believes the current language in Policy JC gives the Superintendent the flexibility already without any changes but would accept the proposed language changes to this policy as well. Mr. Hurley is very comfortable with the added language that the Superintendent would like to add to the policies. 6. – Agenda Item: FY16 4th Quarter Financial Report The FY16 4th Quarter Financial Report will be had at a subsequent School Committee Meeting. 7. – Agenda Item: Second Buffer Zone Policy Reading – Further Discussion The School Committee Policy Subcommittee presented the second of three public readings of Policy JCAB Buffer Zones in conjunction with a first of two public readings of cross-referenced policies to Buffer Zone Policy JCAB. Ms. Jay read the proposed Buffer Zone policy. Again, the working Committee left this policy very broad to allow flexibility for the Superintendent. Ms. Steigerwald believes that the buffer zone is something the School Committee is preparing as a policy but will be implemented only when needed. Ms. Steigerwald recommends adding the following language to the second paragraph in the Draft Buffer Zone Policy; It is the preference of the School Committee that when the administration delineates any buffer zones that a student is assigned to no less than two and no more than three schools. The School Committee agrees to add this language to the Draft Buffer Zone Policy. Ms. Crocker believes buffer zones are just another option for the Superintendent to use, and does not signify that there is a current need for the superintendent to develop new assignment maps as of yet. The foundation for the buffer zones concept is to develop a policy to have for when it is needed. Redistricting and / or buffer zones are tools that will be implemented on a larger scale when capacity becomes available such as when a new school or new construction project is finished. Mr. Hurley explains that the plan of not currently implementing buffer zones needs to be clear to the public; the School Committee is adopting this policy to shelf not implement until it is needed by the Superintendent. As of now, the Superintendent has the flexibility to move students for enrollment and capacity needs. Ms. Jay recommends changing the third bullet to read; Family Unity in making sibling assignments. The School Committee agrees to have Ms. Colby Brunt review all policy changes and the Buffer Zone Policy before the third reading. Cross Referenced Policies to JCAB Buffer Zones 6 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 Ms. Crocker reviewed policy changes recommended by the Policy Subcommittee that will allow the newly proposed policy JCAB to operate in tandem with current related policies. These related policies included: a. JC – Attendance Areas b. JCA – Assignment of Students to Schools c. JCAA –Redistricting d. JCAC – Student Transfer Policy e. JFAB – Policy on Non-Resident Students f. JFABC – Admission of Transfer Students g. JFBB – School Choice 8. – Agenda Item: Central Registration – a. Staffing Request – 2.0 FTE (1.0 Registration and Enrollment Specialist, 1.0 Central Administrative Assistant) b. Funding Source Superintendent, Dr. Mary Czajkowski, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Sandy Trach, and the Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations, Ian Dailey updated the School Committee on Central Registration. Dr. Czajkowski explained that in 2015, the School Committee approved a .5 position at Bridge and a .5 for Bowman. Dr. Czajkowski has spoken to both principals regarding the .5 positions working in the central registration office at the CO building. Both principals agree, as the registration will be removed from the schools. Ms. Trach explained that in order to begin the process of Central Registration in the Central Office building, the Central Registration design team would need a onetime cost of $39,615 for workstations, equipment and furniture. Central Registration will also need approval for a 1.0 FTE Registration and Enrollment Specialist position and a 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant – Central Registration Position. Move that the School Committee approve a 1.0 FTE Registration and Enrollment Specialist position, a 1.0 FTE Administrative Assistant – Central Registration position, and approve a transfer in the amount of $39,615 from Salaries & Wages to the Superintendent Expense portion of the budget funded as outlined in this item. (Crocker/Hurley) The Motion was approved 5-0. 9. – Vote on the MASC Resolutions Mr. Alessandrini reviewed t the2017 MASC Resolutions with the Committee. Move to support all four Resolutions. (Hurley /Crocker) The Motion was approved 5-0. Motion to adjourn. (Hurley / Alessandrini) The Motion was approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:21pm Meeting Materials: Agenda; A.1- Agenda Item Summary, Educational Program for the Maria Hastings Elementary School; A.2- Agenda Item Summary, DiNisco Design LCP Phase One Presentation; A.3- Agenda Item Summary, Existing Permanent Diamond Traffic Plan, Initial Proposed Permanent Diamond Traffic Plan, Transportation Safety Group – Feedback on initial Proposed Permanent Traffic Plan, Alternate Permanent Diamond Traffic Plan – 2 lanes on Hancock entrance, Transportation Safety Group – Feedback on alternate Proposed Permanent Traffic Plan, Alternate Permanent Diamond Traffic Plan – 3 lanes on Hancock entrance, Recommendation memo on Diamond Traffic Plan, DiNisco Design Proposal – 3 lane alternative on Hancock Street; A.4- Agenda Item Summary, 2016 MCAS highlight power point, MCAS and Accountability memo; A.5- Agenda Item Summary; A.6- Agenda Item Summary, Fourth Quarter Salaries and Wages Budget – Detail, Fourth Quarter Expenses Budget – Detail; A. 7- Agenda Item Summary, Draft Buffer Zone Policy; Cross Referenced Policies to JCAB Buffer Zones; A.8- Agenda 7 LSC Meeting 11/1/16 Item Summary, Registration and Enrollment Specialist – Job Description, Administrative Assistant – Central Registration – Job Description; A.9- Agenda Item Summary, Report of the Resolutions Committee