Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-01-SC-min Page 226 December. 1, 1975 A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee came to order at 8:00 p.m. at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School. Present were ( Mesdames Swanson, Berchtold, Messrs. Brown, Rotberg and Wadsworth and student representative Wachman. Also present were Messrs. Spiris, Maclnnes, Monderer, Barstow, Barnes and Miss Quinn. Prior to the commencement of public participation, Mrs. Swanson read the following statement: "I feel at this time I must express my concern over some statements CHAIRMAN'S that have been made that I feel are uninformed or misleading enough STATEMENT to warrant a statement of clarification. The suggestion that Lexington plans to close some schools eventually was originally made about ten years ago and debated on and off ever since. In February, 1974, after months and months of debate, the School Committee voted to hire an architect to do an architectural study of our school facilities. It is now December, 1975, and the School Committee is planning to continue its discussion of the very complex problem of what to do when faced with a declining enroll- ment of well over 40%--from a high of 9609 students in 1969 to a projected 5692 students in 1980 or a decline of almost 4000 stu- dents. At our recent School Committee meeting there was not suggestions at any time by any member that a definite decision relative to closing schools be made in a few weeks. What was discussed was the fact that much work has been done by many people, much discussion has already taken place, the problem has not gone away and the committee was asked by its chairman to readdress itself to the matter. It is necessary at this time for us to restudy the reports submitted to us, discuss these reports further amongst ourselves and with the various committees, determine what additional information we need, plan for an open meeting, set up a schedule to do all these things and arrive at a decision. We had such a schedule worked out for last spring which we changed to allow for further study of various aspects, but the postponement of last spring's schedule did not imply we could avoid addressing ourselves to this matter indefi- nitely. Reference to a December deadline was made regarding the date for filing any capital expenditure plans for the 76-77 budget. This deadline is not established by the School Committee, but by the Town government, and the School Committee members were reminded that if any capital expenditures were planned for 1976-77 they would have to be submitted by December 31. Such proposals can be withdrawn at any time, but it was important for the School Committee to be informed of the December 31 deadline for sub- mission of all requests. (As a matter of fact we have been re- quested for a five-year capital expenditure plan as required by law. ) This might be a good time to make it clear that the School Committee's fiscal autonomy does not extend to capital ex- penditures, and all such expenditures will require approval of the Town Meeting. The Town Government has requested, and justi- fiably so, that they be kept informed of our plans and schedule as the possibility of closing schools does affect the entire com- . munity, and the entire community should be involved and have input into the Page 227 December 1, 1975 decision. The School Committee does not have control over what happens to buildings when they are no longer needed for school pur- poses. We can make suggestions and should be working with other groups such as the Selectmen, Planning Board, etc. , to formulate suggestions but it should be made clear that our autonomy only goes so far. 'I believe the School Committee has been very thorough and careful in its deliberations. We have set up several committees to study the effect of closing schools and plan to request even more help from these committees. We do expect to have an interim report from the Educational Plan Study Committee in early January and have al- ready had some input from them. However, their final report will not be submitted for some time. The charge given the Educational Plan Study Committee addressed itself to much more than the issue of closing some schools and although their reports will give us necessary information regarding closing schools, I personally hope their reports will be useful in our primary goal of making ALL schools better for both teachers and students. I trust the above will clarify some misunderstandings and assure everyone that we are continuing with our original plan to study every aspect, work with the committees established to help us col- lect information, and make decisions after thorough and careful study of information from all sources." Following Mrs. Swanson's statement, Mr. Otis Brown presented the MEMBER'S following proposal: STATEMENT "First for myself, and I am sure, on behalf of other School Com- mittee members, I wish to make it clear that we shall not be in- timidated by any group of parent-citizens concerned only with their particular school district. The School Committee will, in its best judgment, act on the subject of school closings only after careful consideration has been given to all proposals. Obviously, these considerations will include possible effects on the overall quality of education in Lexington as well as the financial implications on all parents and citizens. 'Secondly, I do not believe that any prudent parent or citizen can deny the fact that reasonably accurate elementary projections through 1980 indicate a decline of some 1,200 students or 32% less than currently enrolled in K through 6. Consider the following facts: Total number of elementary schools 11 Total number of classrooms available 193 Total number of classrooms used for Spec. Ed. , Art, Reading, Aides, etc. 35 Total number used as classrooms -1975 158 Page 228 December 1, 1975 1975 1980 f Enrollment 3,771 2,564 - Minus 1,207 Students Classroom Teachers At present ratio 1:24.6 153 104 - Minus 49 teachers *At reduced ratio of 1:22 117 - Minus 36 teachers Number of Classrooms At present ratio 23:9 158 107 - Minus 31 Classrooms *At reduced ratio of 22 117 - Minus 41 classrooms *Projected at improved classrooms and pupil-teacher ratio. Above projections do not include consideration for any change in the use of 35 potential classrooms now used for other purposes. The real problem facing parents, citizens, educators and School Committee is what to do with approximately 50 empty classrooms. Improvement in the pupil teacher ratio to 1:22 would leave a sur- plus of 41 empty classrooms and a ratio of 1:20 a surplus of 30 classrooms. At the present time the proposal uppermost in everyone's mind is the progressive closing of Hancock (8 classrooms), Munroe (10 classrooms), Parker (13 classrooms) , Adams (16 classrooms). This would eliminate a total of 47 rooms or approximately 43 actual classrooms. As an alternative to building closing, I wish to offer the follow- ing suggestions for consideration by all concerned. 1. The structural make-up of Bowman and Bridge Schools indicate that sections involving 10 or 12 classrooms might be physically separated and used for some other purpose without disturbing the educational process. (Total of 24 classrooms). There may be an additional 8 classrooms each in Hastings and Harrington Schools which might be separated (Total of 16 classrooms). 2. Small schools such as Munroe and Hancock, if they are to re- main on-line, should be administered by one principal and staff thus saving the higher administration salaries. This arrangement is not uncommon in other school districts across the country. 3. If step one above is possible, then step two might also prove feasible for those additional schools involved with reduced en- rollments. 'In conclusion, because of the complexity of what to do with empty buildings or classrooms and because it is a town-wide problem, I feel it would be useful for the school committee and administration to involve the selectmen for input regarding the future use of empty buildings or classrooms." Page 229 December 1, 1975 Mr. Charles Code, 15 Flintlock Rd. , Stated his support for the PUBLIC neighborhood school concept. He expressed his concern that the PARTICIPATION smaller schools in the center of town were slated for closing. These neighborhoods, he said, were ideal for families with small children due to ease of walking, price, etc. In summation he noted that closing down a school or a facility was not related to quality "pay-off" for a school system. Mrs. Catherine Nigrini, 17 Highland Ave. , expressed concern that the Lexington Minuteman article reported an atmosphere of hostility at a recent Munroe parents meeting. She wished to emphasize that no hostil- ity existed at the meeting and parents were attending School Committee meetings to hear what the School Committee is saying. Parents are in- terested in listening to the School Committee. William Spencer, representing the Meriam Hill Association, wished to remind the School Committee of a letter sent last May from the Associ- ation to the School Committee which called attention to the concern for closing any of the downtown area schools. Mr. Don Blackwell of 24 Percy Rd. , commented on the enrollment de- cline from a town-wide viewpoint. He noted that the schools projected for phase out have had fairly consistent enrollments. He also remembered that Franklin School operated half empty for years. He cautioned the School Committee about completely closing a facility, Mr. Blackwell sup- ported Mr. Brown's comments that were read at the beginning of the meet- ing. ( Mr. Roland Gubisch, 627 Massachusetts Ave. , stated that the P.T.A. Boards of Parker, Munroe, Hancock, Adams and Muzzey Schools found it im- possible to understand why the School Committee is considering school closing at this time. He stressed that the Educational Program Study Committee would not report until after January 1, the Cost Savings Com- mittee noted no substantial savings unless the buildings are sold, leased or demolished, and that the closing of Munroe next year ran contrary to all sub-committee reports. He further stated as other factors the sta- bility of Munroe's enrollment, the lowest per pupil expenditure of all the Lexington schools, and the Fiske and Franklin Schools, to which Mun- roe students would be reassigned could not provide the proper space. In summary, he stated that the P.T.A. might support a closing, if the. rea- sons were clear. Mrs. Swanson responded saying that any school closing will be ac- companied by specific reasons. Dr. Kenneth Hoffman, Chairman of the Educational Program Study Com- mittee, requested that a schedule be set for discussion between the School Committee and citizen's sub-committee. He felt that only by this mode of operation can citizens feel that their inputs are being received. Mrs. Patricia Maier, 29 Bloomfield St. , expressed support for Mr. Brown's ideas outlined in his statement. Her concern was also with the size of schools. She supported small, neighborhood walking schools especially in grades K-3. She asked the School Committee if a discussion of grades or redistribution of grades had been considered. Mrs. Swanson commented that all alternatives would be reviewed. Page 230 December 1, 1975 Mrs. Georgia Glick, 21 Eliot Road, said she was interested in Mr. Brown's alternative approach. She hoped that the School Committee would consider neighborhood impact such as real estate value. She felt that a decline in a real estate value in the center of town could result if the center schools were closed. She reminded the School Committee of the value of parent participation in all decisions since the school is an ex- tension of the home. In summary, she expressed the sentiments of former Superintendent Fobert that any school closing is not a separate decision. It must be made in relation to impact elsewhere. All factors should be taken into consideration. Mr. Brown replied to Mrs. Glick's comment on real estate value say- ing that he had posed the Massachusetts Avenue school situation to real estate brokers. The brokers' feelings were that the phase-out of a school or schools would make no significant change in real estate value. It was MINUTES VOTED: to accept the minutes as presented. (Brown, Berchtold, Unanimous) Nov. 10, 1975 Upon the recommendation of the Interim Superintendent of Schools SCHEDULE OF it was PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the Schedule of Payments as presented. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous)(See next page) The financial statement for the period 7/1/75 through 10/31/75 was FINANCIAL discussed by the School Committee. STATEMENT Mr. Spiris presented a report to the School Committee concerning TUITIONED OUT tuitioned out students as of 10/21/75. He explained that 45 students STUDENTS were attending private or LAB programs as tuition students. If no new cases are added, he noted, the projected cost was $158,412.60. Since $122,805 was budgeted, a deficit of $35,547. was projected. Mrs. Berchtold asked if it were possible to provide partial core SPECIAL NEEDS evaluations, if a parent requested a full core evaluation. Dr. Guldager responded that the law stated that we must provide a full core evaluation if requested. Mrs. Swanson then stated that improved long range planning was needed for this topic and for the dollar dilemma. Dr. Rotberg suggested that one possibility would be to ask the Appro- priation Committee for additional funds. Mr. Spiris interjected that even though this was an alternative he would like to get at least 2 more months of expenditure experience. Dr. Rotberg replied that it was necessary to try an orderly solu- tion to this dilemma rather than institute a stop on services. Mrs. Swanson suggested not going to the Appropriation Committee at this time. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Spiris what would happen if the School Committee directed the School Administration to operate within approved amount? Page 230 A December 1, 1975 SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #11 NC $ 67,155.74 November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll #11 C 397,487.68 Expenses November 21, 1975 Bill Schedules #68 3,408.60 November 21, 1975 #69 1,447.35 November 28, 1975 #70 11,804.02 November 28, 1975 #71 3,690.57 November 28, 1975 #72 18,714.50 November 28, 1975 #73 43,708.31 Expenses (Carryover 73-74) November 21, 1975 923.75 Out-of-State Travel November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule # 5 88.06 Athletics November 21, 1975 Payrolls # 7 601.00 November 21, 1975 # 8 513.00 December 5, 1975 # 9 351.00 l December 5, 1975 #10 34,604.00 December 5, 1975 #11 416.00 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedules #12 222.97 November 28, 1975 #13 410.18 Vocational Education November 28, 1975 Transportation # 6 115.92 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington Funds) Teacher Training Program II November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #4 1,491.88 November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #6 86.40 November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 368.85 Metco Program November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #5 NC 1,124.08 November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 3,693.29 Adult Education November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 784.80 Driver Education - Adult Education November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 1,112.50 LABB Pre-Voc. Life Care Program November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #6 NC 1,064.48 November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 875.46 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedules #5 (a) 32.80 K, , November 21, 1975 #5 26.89 L.E.A.D.S. Program November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #6 404.00 November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 1,403.87 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #3 152.80 Autistic Program (Lexington) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 717.96 November 28,1975 Classified Payroll #6 251.10 Autistic Program (Arlington) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 2,667.45 November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #7 153.60 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #4 544.46 Multiple-Handicapped (Burlington) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 425.65 November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #6 216.00 Pre-School (Burlington) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 1,475.78 November 28, 1975 Classified Payroll #5 432.00 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #4 1,175.81 Pre-School (Bedford) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 269.23 November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #1 184.38 Title I (PL 89-313) November 21, 1975 Professional Payroll 102.89 ESEA Library November 21, 1975 Bill Schedule #2 579.45 YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE Page 231 December 1, 1975 Mr. Spiris said that he could inform parents that there would be no d,...._., . tuition money, or the system might offer no tutoring services, or could decide to process no new Core evaluations. Another alternative would be to reduce present tutoring and stop all tutoring when funds are de- pleted. He also noted that most of these alternatives could result in withholding of State aid at least or court action at worst. After further discussion a majority of the School Committee felt it would be appropriate to wait 2 months as Mr. Spiris suggested before tak- ing any action. The discussion of school closings began with several comments from SCHOOL Dr. Wadsworth. He stated his feeling that the School Committee had not CLOSINGS received all the data required to make a decision on school closings. He felt the following actions were needed: —schedule a meeting with principals and school administration - schedule a meeting for School Committee to review all citizen reports - arrange appointments with former Assistant Superintendent Commit() and Massachusetts Department of Education to obtain their ideas. He continued the commentary on the three citizen advisory reports. "The enrollment is declining and will decline further." He questioned any "flattening out" projections. As far as re-assignment of pupils is concerned, perhaps the members should think about open enrollment. He requested members to express interest in this topic. Finally, he noted two items--the School Committee has no jurisdiction over buildings after phaseout and it was up to the Town to address itself to that problem and an individual building may not save costs but a total package concept may accomplish significant savings. Mr. Spiris restated the importance of a response by the School Com- mittee to the following: 1. Does the School Committee accept the basic assumptions of original charge: Minimize cost by discontinuing some schools because of declin- ing enrollment while equalizing educational opportunities with im- proved facilities in the remaining schools? 2. Does the School Committee accept the time table as determined in the report of the Committee to Study the Reassignment of Pupils? 3. Does the School Committee accept the assumption that cost savings should be looked at from a total Town point of view or should be considered from a cost of education point of view? 4. Should the School Committee detail the following planned capital expenditures? 1977 (summer) alterations Harrington $55,000 1977 (summer) " Hastings 55,000 Page 232 December 1, 1975 1977 alterations Diamond $1,000,000 1978 Estabrook 50,000 1978 " Fiske 40,000 1979 Franklin 200,000 1979 (Summer) " Munroe (Adm. ) 70,000 (contingent upon #1 and timing) 5. Consider status of report of Educational Program Study Com- mittee and its implications to school closing decision. He noted that he would opt for equal educational opportunities and reinvest the savings for the students of the remaining schools. Mrs. Swanson reiterated that renovations and phase out plans are two separate decisions with the Town Meeting having the final judgment on renovations. Dr. Rotberg focused on the enrollment figures stating that in 1990 we will reach our present elementary enrollment and in 1990 we will again reach 1965 elementary enrollment, if we use the Government's lowest fig- ure. All of which indicated caution on any phase out of schools. He fortified his comment by stating that we might have to build schools in 1990, if we phase out some buildings. In summary, he agreed that no one was debating the figures up to 1980 but the only point of issue was whether enrollment would flatten in 1980 or go up. Mrs. Berchtold noted that the new data on Lexington may suggest a beginning of a departure from government projections with Lexington losing more students than the original estimate. Mr. Brown stated his belief that if the committee could accept the 1980 figures then the next 5 years could be evaluated periodically with any phase out dependent on the conditions existing at that time. He also noted the Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc. Report gave the committee the option of looking at the conditions each year. Dr. Rotberg said the renovation figures were a "red herring" due to the age of the report. Mr. Spiris also agreed that the figures used for the Central Office conversion at Munroe were as of 1967 but are the best available. He again reminded the committee and the public that in no way were administrative needs the priority for any building phase out. However, if a building does become available, administrative needs should be taken into account. Page 233 December 1, 1975 Mrs. Swanson felt that the School Committee should ask the redis- ; . tricting committee to investigate new figures for open enrollment possi- bilities and a new phase out order--Munroe before Hancock. Mr. Sam Nablo of the Redistribution Committee responded to Mrs. Swanson's comments asking what new criteria is there for re-evaluating. He felt his committee had already done this job. Mrs. Swanson replied that hopefully the sub-committee could suggest criteria and tell the committee what would happen if each criterion was deleted in any phase out of•a building. Dr. Rotberg felt that the Educational Program Survey will assist in clarification of equality of programs and suggested an agenda be set up for a logical sequential discussion of the reports. The committee agreed to continue the school phaseout discussion at another meeting. Upon the recommendation of the Interim Superintendent of Schools, PERSONNEL it was CHANGES VOTED: It was agreed to have a review of the junior high school program FUTURE AGENDAS on December 15 and a review of Personal Services on December 8 if mater- ials were ready. Mr. Spiris said that on December 8 or 15 the evaluations of the Learning Center, and the November 10 In-Service Day would be given. It was VOTED: to go into executive session at 11:27 p.m. to discuss a personnel matter. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, R hard H. Barnes Recording Secretary /k Pro Tem //