Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-17-SC-min Page 1 January 17, 1977 The Lexington School Committee met at Clarke Junior High School at 8:00 p.m. on January 17, 1977. Present were Mrs.Swanson, Messrs. Rotberg, Michelman, Wadsworth, Brown, and student representative Miss Nancy Abel- mann. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Monderer, Maclnnes, Pierson. Mrs. Swanson read the following statement: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION "We are concerned that recent statements reportedly made by some members of major boards indicate a lack of understanding or information-- or both--regarding the school budget. It would seem that with Lexington entering a very difficult time, it is a period that requires more--not less--understanding, cooperation and coordination bey, -en major boards and departments, and the best interest of the taxpayers would be served if we all concentrate on doing our own job better rather than expending energy pre-judging anyone else' s performance. 'Each of us, elected officials, appointed officials and employees h ve a responsibility to fulfill. The School Committee is elected to uovide the best possible education for our students within the financial resources of the Lexington taxpayer. Six months ago we appointed a new Superintendent charged with the responsibility of formulating our school budget for 1977-78. We are very concerned with the escalating costs of municipal government and are working very hard to be responsive to this concern. It is difficult to understand the judgmental statements made about the school committee budget or attitude before anyone has even seen the results of our efforts. 'We had a most positive and productive meeting with the Appropria- tions Committee concerning our efforts and plans. Although both the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Board of Selectmen were informed that we could not unilaterally cut our '76-'77 budget, we as- sured them every expenditure would be carefully examined and every at- tempt made to return as large a surplus as possible to the E & D Account. That is what we promised to do and that is what we are doing. This does not, in our opinion indicate a lack of concern or cooperation. 'We hope that before Town Meeting convenes we will be able to give the Appropriations Committee an anticipated surplus figure to project as a balance in the E & D account. When that figure is determined, then judgment can be made as to our efforts during '76-'77. We have also, as promised, scheduled a meeting in mid-February with the Appropriations Committee to discuss our '77-'78 budget in its entirety to keep them in- formed, to answer any questions and give insight into future plans. 'We trust the cooperation and support between the School Committee and the Appropriations Committee established during the past few years will continue. We agree that all new expenditures should be thoroughly evaluated and scrutinized, and trust all taxpayers will agree that cuts and reductions should be handled in the same careful, responsible way. That is the manner in which the School Committee has been operating and that is the way we will continue to operate. We have no problem with be- ing judged on our results, but we do think responsible people should wait for the results." Page 2 January 17, 1977 Mr. Michelman added his support for Mrs. Swanson's position. He observed that the School Committee and no one else bears the responsi- bility to recognize the high priority of quality education for Lexing- ton children. He hoped that those who do not ultimately bear that re- sponsibility will recognize this fact. Mr. Michelman went on to cite a letter in the most recent Minuteman from a business man who referred to a rise of 56% in the cost of educa- ting a child in Lexington. These figures, he said, do not accord with the published per pupil cost. He noted that, as he calculates it, the gross increase during the years '72-'76 is 43%, and that this gross represents substantial increases in special education under Chapter 766. The percentage quoted (in the newspaper) was not, as far as he could de- termine, accurate and is worrisome and may lead taxpayers to unnecessary concern. Dr. Rotberg commented that Mrs. Swanson' s statement was excellent. He MOVED that it should be accepted as the position of the School Committee. (Michelman, seconded, Unanimous) At this point, Dr. Rotberg mentioned that there seemed to be wide- spread misunderstanding regarding citizens taking courses at the high school. He stressed that no extra staffing would be necessary as only two or three adults would be allowed per class. He added that the modest fee to be collected would go to the Lexington E & D fund. He noted that adult enrollment at the high school was absolutely not a deflection of any intention to pad the enrollment. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1 VOTED: to accept the minutes of December 13, 1976 as amended. (Brown; Michelman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services December 24, 1976 Classified Payroll #13 $ 68,575.34 December 17, 1976 Professional Payrolls #14 428,723.36 December 31, 1976 #15 424,960.85 Expenses December 17, 1976 Bill Schedules #92 1,943.49 December 17, 1976 #93 9,739.90 December 17, 1976 #94 4,353.01 December 17, 1976 #95 13,460.57 December 17, 1976 #96 554.78 December 23, 1976 #97 3,233.14 December 23, 1976 #98 3,017.73 December 23, 1976 #99 6,090.99 December 23, 1976 #100 38,842.61 December 23, 1976 #101 2,882.69 Page 3 January 17, 1977 December 31, 1976 #102 2,636.28 December 31, 1976 #103 3,808.88 i December 31, 1976 #104 34,462.04 January 7, 1977 #105 1,496.63 January 7, 1977 #106 4,007.81 January 7, 1977 #107 12,933.56 Expenses (Carryover) December 23, 1976 Bill Schedules #208 41.92 January 7, 1977 #209 12.00 Out-of-State Travel December 17, 1976 Bill Schedules #15 265.00 December 23, 1976 #16 457.20 December 31, 1976 #17 156.00 Athletics December 17, 1976 Payrolls #10 750.00 December 17, 1976 #11 15,083.00 December 17, 1976 #12 130.00 December 17, 1976 Bill Schedules #18 1,556.35 December 31, 1976 #19 1,229.08 Vocational Education December 31, 1976 Tuition #5 4,120.00 SPECIAL PROGRAMS NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Adult Education December 17, 1976 Professional Payroll 1,983.60 December 23, 1976 Bill Schedule 82.65 Driver Education (Adult Education) December 17, 1976 Professional Payrolls 1,690.08 December 31, 1976 1,066.10 Metco. Program December 24, 1976 Classified Payroll #8 1,349.13 December 17, 1976 Professional Payrolls 4,658.89 December 31, 1976 4,170.14 December 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #7 13,627.20 January 7, 1977 #8 90.73 LEADS Program December 24, 1976 Classified Payroll 1,260.40 December 17, 1976 Professional Payrolls 811.53 December 31, 1976 811.53 December 17, 1976 Bill Schedules #2 6,133.55 December 23, 1976 #3 6.15 January 7, 1977 #4 3,930.56 MTA Southwick Salary December 17, 1976 Professional Payrolls 745.38 December 31, 1976 745.38 ESEA Library Title IV December 23, 1976 Bill Schedule #3 705.45 Bus Ticket Account December 23,1976 Bill Schedule #3 1,716.65 t 1 Page 4 January 17, 1977 Dr. Lawson called attention to the attached breakdown of teaching expenses. He noted that regular teaching expenses were in line with previous years. Tutorial expenses, he agreed, were up and likely to be an overexpenditure again this year. Dr. Lawson read a letter from Palmer and Dodge which indicated that the sum of $8,877.37 would be returned to the Town of Lexington's E & D Account from a teacher who was granted a sabbatical and did not use it as stipulated. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was VOTED: to accept the Bowman School, and request that the Building Com- mittee proceed with filing the final claim with the School Build- ing Assistance Bureau. (Brown, Rotberg, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the following new personnel (secondary) . (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Date Change PERSONNEL CHANGES Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the Personnel Changes (Classified) . (Rotberg, Michel- (CLASSIFIED) man, Unanimous) Leave of Absence (Without Pay) Resignation New Personnel Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was BIDS FOOD SERVICE/ VOTED: to award the Food Service/Paper Supplies to the following com- PAPER SUPPLIE panics. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Items Company Approximate Totals 4,12,15,17,18,25 Arrow Paper Corporation $ 1,806.62 5,16,24 Atlas Paper Co. 333.16 Page 5 January 17, 1977 1-3,6,7,10-14,19,20, 22,23,26,27 Bay Colony Paper Corp. $10,843.35 21 Franklin & Perkins Co. , Inc. 78.10 8,9,28 Merrimac Sales Company 561.15 $13,622.38 Dr. Monderer noted that the reason for the substantial change in TUITION RATE tuition rates from last year was a decision not to charge another system for expenses Lexington incurs for conducting its own core evaluators. In response to a question from Dr. Rotberg, Dr. Monderer agreed that it is fair to assume that Lexington would want to provide places for these tuition students in programs provided by the Lexington system. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was VOTED: to accept the tuition rate of $5200. for students in special education classes for the '76-'77 school year. (Rotberg, Brown, Unanimous) . Dr. Rotberg suggested and the Committee agreed, that the order of the agenda be changed to accommodate interested parties present. Dr. Pierson introduced a Proposal for Improving the Drama Program DRAMA PROPOSAL in the Lexington Schools. He noted that this report was presented by a committee whose members had been active in drama and had been trying to develop a program for some time. Mrs. Swanson commented that she supports developing a program and would not question staffing for such an effort. However, she indicated that she does have some reservations about the facilities improvements requested. Mr. Michelman agreed with Mrs. Swanson' s position, and questioned the four categories of staffing costs, not all of which, he believed, were reflected in the Personal Services Budget. Dr. Lawson responded that the .25 position is not represented be- cause it would be covered by re-arrangement of the time of a present staff member. Dr. Rotberg questioned whether the allotment of a 2/5 position was appropriate. Dr. Pierson responded that it seemed wise to start out with a part-time person until the program could be built and assessed. He also noted that a part-time person seemed more appropriate since there are no full time coordinators in many of the other academic areas. Mr. Michelman asked why the .25 position is available in the high school English department. Dr. Lawson responded that shifting of teach- ing assignments and declining enrollments could accommodate the need. Dr. Rotberg inquired whether a person who could fill the role ade- iately was presently employed in the system. Mr. Spins replied that a search would be conducted both within and outside the system for the best ( qualified candidate. Page 6 January 17, 1977 Miss Abelmann noted that the students feel that it is vital that the person employed be committed to a drama program. She added that often a student can be active in drama in the early grades, but lack of opportunities in later years often results in rejection of all but the best. She ended by saying that expansion of the drama program is met with enthusiasm by all at Lexington High School. Mrs. Swanson concurred, and hoped that the drama coordinator will be one who will seek out and involve students not currently participat- ing in a drama program. Dr. R.otberg cited the quality of the program currently operating at the elementary level. This new proposal, he noted, recognizes, en- courages and standardizes the program at all levels, Mr. Michelman agreed that this is a well-put-together proposal which deals with a need which everyone agrees is important. He noted that, in terms of finance, it sounds as if, should something have to be sacri- ficed for budgetary reasons, facilities will be the first to go, and he questions whether this is the appropriate area for a cutback. Dr. Pierson responded that provisions for more adequate facilities could be a staggered expense. He stressed, however, that drama is not only performance: lighting, staging, techniques, and design are also important. These, he noted, depend on adequate facilities. Dr. Lawson noted that the expense budget discussion might answer the materials/facilities questions being raised. In response to several questions, Dr. Pierson noted that the $17,000 requested was intended exclusively for lighting at the high school. He assured the Committee that fears about the safety of the equipment were unfounded, but that the consultant who had assessed the facilities had found them outdated and inadequate. Dr. Pierson indicated that the Field Trip Policy committee had, at FIELD 1KIP the outset, addressed two questions: POLICY 1. The advisability of trips which required prolonged (more than one day) absence from school of teachers and/or students. 2. The fact that the amount of expenditures may make some trips out of the reach of some parents and/or students. Mr. Michelman noted that it is obvious that this report represents much work. He noted that the issue involved is activities which occur during a regular school day when students would be in school and staff would be paid for teaching school. Obviously, a trip, in this light must have educational significance. The first principle he felt is that no student should be excluded from such a trip because of an inability to pay. Mrs. Swanson added that the Committee was not debating the value of such trips but must, she felt, debate whether it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to support (even through a substitute) any portion of the expense. Mr. Brown noted that this proposal, good as it is, does not address that concern. Page 7 January 17, 1977 Mr. Michelman said that he had no objection in princirle to having tax dollars support an educational experience as long as all students may participate. Dr. Rotberg noted that the proposal called for collective fund rais- ing and questioned whether this was in line with an earlier policy on fund raising accepted by the School Committee. 1. Whether the School Committee in Lexington is going to approve overnight field trips for any student at any time. He felt that a decision in this area should be based on the premise that there exists instructional goals for individual field trips. 2. If the School Committee is willing to accept the proposal with whatever criteria it wishes to establish for educational sound- ness, will every student be able to participate? Mr. Michelman said that it was important that no student be pre- cluded from participating by financial constraint. Dr. Lawson pointed out that the Committee was in. a position of hav- ing to make an immediate decision for this academic year because some trips are already in the planning stages. Mr. Brown felt that currently planned, or repeat field trips could be grandfathered since this new policy is in the formulative stage. Dr. Rotberg suggested that a scholarship opportunity could be ex- plored for students who might find such trips out of reach. This would help to adhere to the principle, but allow flexibility in application. He said that he did not question the value, wisdom, or educational soundness of these trips, but merely the exclusiveness which he finds unfair. Miss Abelmann noted that students are as sensitive to this inequity as are adults. She would agree that exclusiveness is damaging and should be avoided at all costs. Dr. Pierson interjected that most of the trips under consideration. are camping trips in the $8 to $25. range intimately connected to science or social studies classes. He felt that the scholarship suggestion had merit, but two important weaknesses: it could never satisfy all the needs which would be forthcoming, and it would limit programs in size and num- ber. He continued that criteria for providing such scholarships would have to be uniformly applied, and that administration of such funds would be impossible. Dr. Lawson then offered the following proposal: 1. That those trips which are in the planning process be approved for this year. 2. That the administration direct principals that no overnight field trips be planned for next year until the School Committee approves a policy. 3. That the administration develop a policy which would assure that all trips have educational calidity and are not exclusive of any student on the basis of financial circumstances. Page 8 January 17, 1977 It was VOTED: to accept the above proposal of the Superintendent. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) Dr. Monderer presented to the Committee a numerical summary by SUM uARY OF UC school and grade of Core Evaluations carried out in 1975-1976. EVALUATIONS Mr. Michelman questioned why there was no discernible relationship between the number of cores in any given school and the size of that school. Dr. Monderer responded that there was a variation from school to school in terms of readiness to move from the staffing, or pre-core stage to a core evaluation_ , He added that in some cases the number of cores seems to be one of those "periodic" occurrences. Mr. Michelman asked whether the School Committee should be concerned about those numbers which reflect disuniformities in style. Dr. Monderer agreed, and said he had been exploring these seeming discrepancies with principals. Dr. Lawson noted that the disuniformity did not become apparent un- til this study was carried out. He commented that Chapter 766 appeared to have two stages: the early implementation, and the refinement. He believed that the system is now ready for the latter stage. Mr. Spiris said that initially the position was advertised and SEARCH FOR about 50 persons made inquiries. From this number, 30 formal applica- ADMINISTRATOR tions were received. A couaaittee narrowed this to a field of three, OF SPEC. ED. but felt that the appropriate person had not been found. Despite the delay, all agreed that re-advertising the position was in the best in- terests of the system. This had been done, he said, in December. Ini- tially, 61 persons had made inquiries as a result of this new advertise- ment, and 25 had made formal application. He said that a list of inter- viewees would be derived, and that the committee would then be reestab- lished to select the best candidate. Dr. Lawson introduced the budget with the following statement: PERSONAL SERVICES "In developing the proposed personal services section of the budget BUDGET for 1977-78 the administration was conscious of several community con- cerns. The first concern is the financial plight of our town which is facing increased costs that cannot be absorbed by increases in the prop- erty tax base or expected to be eased signigicantly by additional State or Federal aid. These additional costs generally result from citizen demands for increased or improved services, from benefits or salary in- creases negotiated by employee groups and from State and Federal laws and regulations that are imposed on local government. Another obvious concern is the declining school enrollment which has gone from 9,600 students in 1.969 to 7,500 today. A third is the $10 tax increase being predicted for Lexington next year on top of the $8.20 per thousand in- crease this year. ' These concerns were with us as we developed the Personal Services section of the budget. Every department head, coordinator, principal Page 9 January 17, 1977 and system administrator was asked to review carefully and to be able to justify fully his or her personnel requests for next year. These requests were considered in view of the seven percent enrollment decline we are expecting next school year, and the need to improve and strengthen some aspects of our educational enterprise. 'The staffing levels we are recommending will enable us to maintain current levels of staffing and provide staffing equity among the various departments and schools. Those departments and schools that are expected to have enrollment increases will usually show staffing increases and those that are expected to decline in enrollments will show decreases. Each department and each school used the current ratios in the system when possible. In. some cases, such as guidance, ratios had to be de- veloped. In other cases exceptions had to be made to the ratios because of special circumstances that were considered, such as the unique makeup of a class. Other exceptions, such as the special subject teachers at the elementary level, were made because of the tightness of their sched- ules this year and the projected grade level makeup of the students in the 11 elementary schools next year. 'The cost of the staffing levels we have used in planning for next year will total $13,471,217 or $494,191 (3.8% over the amount required this year for Personal Services. It compares with a computed amount of $13,740,943 an increase of $773,916, if a' l staffing levels for 1977-78 had not been analyzed carefully by the entire administrative team and did not reflect the an Acipated decline of 532 students next September. "I do appreciate the support and cooperation I have received from every administrator in the development of this section of the 1977-78 budget." Dr. Rotberg asked if the budget as presented reflected all possible changes--tenure elections, administrative re-elections, etc. He noted that under the new contract step increases are based on merit, and merit presumes evaluation. So, he continued, was it not possible that some in- creases may not be reconmuended after evaluations are completed. Dr. Lawson noted that increases are not based on merit, but on suc- cessful performance which, he agreed must be based on evaluation. He said that March 28 was the date scheduled for re-election of staff. Dr. Rotberg commented that it would be a good idea to have salary increases or decreases in the budget when it was presented to town meet- ing, or earlier if possible. Dr. Lawson said that he did not know if the system' s evaluation time- table would permit compliance with such a request but that he would in- vestigate the possibility and report back to the School Committee. Dr. Rotberg noted that the phrase "based on specific needs" appeared in several places as explanation for a budget request. He wondered if a clearer phrase might be chosen to explain the request more exactly. Page 10 January 17 , 1977 Dr. Lawson responded that, where the phrase was used exact informa- tion was available to back it up. He cited item 2100-lb as an example. Dr. Pierson presented, at this point, a list of curriculum workshop pro- posals as requests "based on specific needs." Dr. Rotberg agreed that a long-term view of the professional devel- opment concept was a good idea but hoped it did not preclude the kind of specific review which had been helpful in the past. Dr. Pierson then presented an explanation sheet for item 2100-2b-- curriculum resource centers, which are intended to provide program man- agers with resources necessary to function effectively and to begin the development of a system-wide curriculum center. Dr. Rotberg questioned the wisdom of scattering these centers through- out the system, since other towns have done well with centralized re- source centers. Dr. Pierson responded that immediate needs must be met, and it was not now clear when or if space would become available for a centralized resource center. Dr. Rotberg replied that it still ought to be demonstrated that this is the most cost-effective way--that the money would not be better spent on another model. He noted further that this system seemed to perpetuate program management by principals, a concept which has been called into question. Dr. Pierson responded that a proposal for curriculum management would be presented to the school committee at a later date. He con- tinued that while he had come to Lexington with many doubts about the concept of principals as program managers, he now thought it was an idea worth exploring. He felt that perhaps the weakness was that prin- cipals as program managers had not been given the resources necessary to do the job effectively. Mrs. Swanson then noted that due to the hour, further discussion of the budget should be postponed until the next meeting. She indicated that there was need for an Executive Session. Mr. Michelman moved to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing one or more possible matters of litigation and also a collective bargaining matter, at 11:10 p.m. (Swanson, yes; Rotberg, yes; Michelman, yes; Wadsworth, yes; Brown, yes) Mrs. Swanson announced that the Committee would not come out of Executive Session. Resp ctfully submitted, Eliz eth A. Quinn /k Recording Secretary, Pro tem