HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-14-SC-min Page 96
May 14, 1976
A special meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held Friday,
May 14, in the School Administration Building at 3:00 p.m. Present were
Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Michelman, Wadsworth, and Rotberg. Also present
were Messrs. Spixis and Maclnnes, and Miss Quinn. Dr. John Lawson, who
will assume the position of Superintendent of the Lexington Public Schools
on June 14, 1976 was also in attendance.
The purpose of the meeting was to allow an exchange of ideas between
Dr. Lawson and the members of the School Committee on matters of mutual
concern, especially filling the position of Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction.
Mr. Michelman opened the discussion. He noted that there was little
question of the need to fill such a position, and to do so as expeditiously
as possible. He did feel that some questions do exist, and that airing
of those questions is important as the screening process begins. He cited
several concerns:
- the need for system coordination, coherence, and control vs the
value of diversity, local (school) autonomy.
- the question of internally created curricula vs those commercially
produced.
Dr. Lawson stated that he had obviously not had sufficient time or
exposure to Lexington to allow him to formulate precise responses to
those concerns. He did, however, have several perceptions that he would
like to share.
He noted first that he had reviewed most of the recent reports pre-
sented to the School Committee (ADL, Educational Program Study Committee)
and had met with Central Office Administrators. He added that he had
asked also each principal to reveal what he or she perceived to be the
primary strength and weaknesses of the school system. All of these
sources, plus his awn experience with a major administrative reorganiza-
tion, contributes to his perception of this situation.
Dr. Lawson felt that any change in the structure of central admini-
stration should contribute to the improvement of programs, services and
procedures. He noted that the development of goals and objectives should
precede any changes, and that such development should be based on broad
input from faculty, community, students, and School Committee. Without
such goals, there exists the risk of continual misunderstanding and the
danger of frustration in any attempts at teamwork. Dr. Lawson stated
that he has a strong commitment to "involvement", and that that implies
a need for teamwork at the system level.
There seems to be a fairly strong consensus, Dr. Lawson continued,
that there exists in Lexington a void in the area of curriculum. The
plan to hire an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction,
addresses this need. Dr. Lawson sees this as an essential position for
change--change for the learner, for teachers and administrators, for
the community, because the needs of all these groups are changing. He
sees this person as a facilitator of renewal, helping staff in a number
Page 97
May 14, 1976
of vital activities: developing goals and objectives, revitalizing pro-
grams which currently exist, updating curriculum guides, assessing new
materials. This person will not write curriculum, but will manage, plan,
coordinate, evaluate, and change where necessary and will do these tasks
with the help of 'system-wide staff.
Mr. Michelman said that there remained the question of the extent
to which we define objectives and goals, and think about means to achieve
them.
Dr. Lawson responded that there is no question that staff must de-
vise goals and objectives, that staff needs the security of this method
of operating. He stressed that such staff-devised objectives be con-
sistent with system-wide goals and objectives.
Dr. Rotberg commented that there are times when school systems get
excited, and times when they don' t. He cited Dr. Lawson' s diagnosis as
contributing to hopes for excitement for the Lexington Public Schools.
Dr. Rotberg continued with several questions regarding the proposed
position of Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction.
1) How would the School Committee and administration be able to let
the prospective candidates know the dimensions of the position,
given the proposed central office reorganization and the July 5
deadline?
2) If this person is appointed to do the tasks listed, what does
the other Assistant do?
3) Which one of the two Assistants will do evaluations?
To the first question, Dr. Lawson responded that there are numerous
advantages to having a person "on board" by August 1.
- to begin to know staff, programs, etc. , and not lose time with this
background work in September.
- to perform tasks and create an atmosphere which will convince staff
from the beginning of school of administrative support and concern.
- to establish the person's role on the Central Administration team.
Distribution of tasks, Dr. Rotberg's second question, was difficult
to answer at this time, Dr. Lawson felt. However, he noted that he ex-
pected to work closely with all Central Office staff, and to make changes
where he sees the need.
The question of who will do the evaluating is another one to be
worked out, Dr. Lawson responded. As soon as the new person is in place
andthe administration is functioning as a team, this question can be
answered.
•
l
Page 98
May 14, 1976
The meeting concluded with a general discussion of the process for
selecting the new assistant. It was decided that Dr. Lawson and Mr.
Spiris would establish a procedure and schedule and keep the School Com-
mittee informed with periodic progress reports.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth A. Quinn
/k Recording Secretary, Pro Tem