Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-24-SC-min Page 11 January 24, 1977 On Monday evening Janaury 24, 1977, the Lexington School Committee conducted a meeting at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School at 8:00 p.m. Present were Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Brown, Michelman, Rotbe'-g, Wadsworth, student representative Nancy Abelmann. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Pierson, Barnes, Monderer, Maclnnes. Mrs. Catherine Nigrini, 17 Highland Avenue, Co-Chairman of Munroe PUBLIC P.T.A. , expressed concern for quality education. She said there was PARTICIPATION great value in small neighborhood schools that serviced walkers. She summarized by saying that such buildings might be needed sometime in the future. Mrs. Gloria Sitzman, 6 Hastings Road, Hancock parent, stated that any option considered by the school committee should cause a minimum of disruption throughout the system. She felt the closing of schools as stated would cause considerable disruption to the sending and receiving schools She also felt it would be wise to keep sufficient number of schools in Lexington in case the court ordered busing into the Metro- politan Districts of Boston. In summary, she said that if there were to be any disruption, it be spread to a large number of students so that the disruption concept would be evenly distributed. Mrs. Swanson replied stating that there was no danger of forced busing since there were no plans known for such action. She added that any action accepted by the school committee should contain a minimal disruption factor to students involved. She noted that in the case of the Hancock School it was necessary to send pupils to two schools since one school could not take all Hancock students at one time. Mr. Julian Bussgang, 43 Peacock Farm Road, expressed his concern regarding the public participation period as scheduled on the agenda. He said it would be most considerate of the school committee to place the segment in the middle of the agenda which would permit more meaning- ful participation. He felt that many citizens wished to comment on agenda items after they were presented rather than making comments at the beginning of a meeting. Mrs. Swanson said a segment of each meeting was set aside for citizens to comment on policies and programs in the Lexington School System and not necessarily for the items on the even- ing' s agenda. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was MINUTES JANUARY 17, 197' VOTED: to accept the minutes of January 17, 1977, as amended. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) VOTED to accept the Executive Session minutes of November 8, 1976. EXECUTIVE SESSD (Wadsworth, Brown, Unanimous) MINUTES NOVEMBER 8,1976 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Page 12 January 24, 1977 SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services January 14, 1977 Professional Payroll #16 $416,395.49 Expenses • January 14, 1977 Bill Schedule #108 4,018.83 January 14, 1977 #109 82,979.82 January 14, 1977 #110 6,864.75 January 21, 1977 #111 4,706.65 January 21, 1977 #112 11,180.98 January 21, 1977 #113 2,192.57 January 21, 1977 #114 21,408.62 Athletics January 14, 1977 Bill Schedules #20 2,639.88 January 21, 1977 Payroll #13 515.00 SPECIAL PROGRAMS NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS Driver Education - Adult Education January 14, 1977 Professional Payroll 976.43 METCO Program January 14, 1977 Bill Schedule #9 13,643.17 January 14, 1977 Professional Payroll 4,308.89 LEADS Program January 14, 1977 Professional Payroll 811.53 MTA Southwick Salary January 14, 1977 Professional Payroll 745.38 ESEA Library January 14, 1977 (Title II) Bill Schedules #5 54.00 January 14, 1977 (Title IV) #4 530.00 ACE Program (Grant) January 14, 1977 Bill Schedule #19 79.00 Pupil School Material Recovery January 14, 1977 Bill Schedules #3 20.00 January 21, 1977 #4 127 .58 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was RELEASE OF FUNDS VOTED: to release $17,577.14 held in escrow since 1973 in the Personal Services Budget to the Town of Lexington. (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson noted that since 1973 the amount had been held in escrow until a ruling from the courts was received regarding sick pay benefits for maternity leave. In a letter from the town counsel the school de- partment had been advised of a Supreme Court decision ruling regarding sick leave pay. The ruling was that the denial of sick leave pay bene- fits for maternity leave did not violate Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Page 13 January 24, 1977 Mrs. Swanson introduced the topic of school closing by reviewing ANALYSIS OF the February, 1976 vote of the school committee which approved the pro- SCHOOL CLOSINGS cess of school closing in September, 1977. She said the impetus for this vote was due to the dramatic decline in enrollment systemwide. She felt school committee members were willing to reverse their votes if convincing data was made available. She said the addition of a new assistant superintendent, and a new superintendent added an open view to analysis of the topic. At this point she introduced Dr. Lawson. He read a prepared statement entitled Summary of Analysis of School Closings in Lexington. "The superintendent attempted to prepare, with assistance of members of the system's administration, information in response to four questions. 1. How many classrooms and schools will the Lexington School System need to educate the projected 5,500 students beginning in the school year 1980? 2. What are the grade level organizations or contributions that can be used to determine the number of classrooms and schools needed to house the 5,500 students? 3. What does research conclude about the relative educational advan- tages and disadvantages of small and large schools? 4. What savings would result from school closings based on project- ed needs? In answering these questions, enrollments from 1969 through 1980 were reviewed. Several grade level organizations were considered using these guidelines. 1. Retention of the present teacher-pupil ratios . 2. Disruption of as few students through transfers. 3. Increased stability. 4. Improved instruction in elementary music, art and French by designating classrooms for these subjects. 5. Retention of the present number of METCO students. 6. Continuation of 50 new students annually to the Minuteman Regional Vocational School. Eased on these guidelines we simulated six options through 1980-81. 1. Option I - Keeping all schools open. 2. Option II - Closing one elementary school a year for four years. 3. Option III - Closing one elementary school a year for four years, Muzzey in 1979 and sending ninth grades to the High School. 4. Option IV - Closing one elementary school a year for four years, send- ing the sixth grade to the three junior high schools in 1979 and the ninth grade to the high school. 3$ Page 14 January 24, 1977 5. Option V - Closing one elementary school a year for four years, clos- ing Muzzey in 1980 and sending the ninth grade to the high school. 6. Option VI - Closing one elementary school a year for four years, sending the sixth grade to the junior high schools in 1980 and the ninth grade to the High School. The procedures and constraints for the simulations were developed by Dr. Frank DiGiammarino, Coordinator of Planning; Richard Barnes, Director of Planning and Research; and Walter Koetke, Coordinator of Computer Services, and are listed on pages 2 and 3 in the Introduction. A survey of the research. on "small vs. large" schools were conducted under the direction of Dr: Geoff Pierson. The conclusions he reached are listed on Page 47 of Section III of the study. After the simulations of projected enrollment were completed, Mr. Mitchell Spiris, Assistant Superintendent of Schools for Personnel, and James Maclnnes, Administrative Assistant for Business, did an estimate of savings for five of the possibilities. They estimate a saving of $835,450 can be affected if four elementary schools and one junior high school are closed by the 1980-81 school year. Page 49 of the report summarizes their findings. Based on the analysis of the school closing issue, Page 51 lists the options that the administration thinks should be considered by the School Committee. They are to: I. Reaffirm the vote to close Hancock School effective September 1, 1977. Hancock students would be reassigned to Fiske and Hastings Schools. 2. Review in. November of 1977 enrollments (Appendix A) and other data to determine future classroom and school requirements. If enrollment projections and subsequent classroom and school re- quirements continue to be valid, close Parker School effective September 1, 1978. Parker students would be reassigned to Bridge and Estabrook Schools. 3. Review in November of 1978 enrollments (Appendix A) and other data to determine future classroom and school requirements. If enrollment,projections and subsequent classroom and school re- quirements continue to be valid, close Munroe School effective September 1, 1979. Munroe students would be reassigned to Fiske and Franklin Schools. 4. Review in November of 1979 enrollments (Appendix A) and other data to determine future classroom and school requirements. If enrollment projections and subsequent classroom and school re- quirements continue to be valid, close Adams School effective September. 1, 1980. Adams students would be reassigned to Bowman and Harrington Schools. Page 15 January 24, 1977 5. Review in November of 1978 and annually thereafter enrollments Appendix A) and other data to determine secondary (grades 7-12) classroom and school requirements. If enrollment projections and subsequent classroom and school requirements continue to be valid, reassign ninth grade students to the high school effective September 1, 1980, and either reassign sixth grade students to the junior high schools or close Muzzey Junior High School. or 6. Assign the ninth grade class to the high school in 1980, and reassign grades six to the three junior high schools, if the enrollment projections and subsequent classroom and school re- quirements continue to be valid according to the enrollment pro- jections (Appendix A) provided in this document. 7 . As additional space becomes available, relocate the administra- tion and locate the proposed curriculum resource center together. Following his report, Mrs. Swanson invited members of the school committee to make comments. Mr. Brown said that his suggestion that parts of other buildings be closed in order to accommodate the enroll- ment decline, had been studied by the administration, and he was dis- appointed to discover as unworkable, that which he thought was a prac- tical solution. He said he would now agree with the analysis by Dr. Lawson and the administration. He complimented the superintendent and said he supported the recommendations. Dr. Rotberg made the following remarks: "The issue which we are discussing tonight has been a..source of division in the school committee and throughout the Town. In beginning a further consideration of the question of school closings, its impact on the town, on students, on parents, on teachers, and on the tax rate, we fortunately have the advantage of a report by the superintendent, four reports by our citizen advisory committees, a detailed commentary on the superintendent' s report by one of our colleagues, remarks on some aspects of the question by principals, and our own perceptions of the preferences of citizens. Some of these data may be more telling than others. I trust that we will be able as a committee to look pa- tiently, dispassionately, and acutely at both the new and the old evi- dence before coming to any conclusions individually and collectively. 'Depsite all of the evidence before us, the report of the superin- tendent is sufficiently detailed and controversial to require yet ad- ditional information. At the heart of the superintendent's report are financial calculations which question the assumptions and rationale set out in the report of the Deutch Committee on Financial Implication. One of the first things that we should do is to ask that committee to recon- vene--I trust that the superintendent would welcome such an action--and examine the reasoning of the financial section of tonight' s document. Page 16 January 24, 1977 A second action would be to request the Pupil Reassignment (Nablo) Com- mittee to see if it agrees that we can safely shift pupils under option 2 (and the further options) with the speed and in the direction suggested in tonight' s report. It appears to me that we will risk large classrooms and some overcrowding in the receiving schools if we accept the criteria in the superintendent' s report, the Druuuuey Rosanne report, or the Nablo report. 'There is a section in tonight' s report on "effective classroom size." It is brief and, to me, disappointing. It cites a Montgomery County and our own report. But it does not draw upon the extensive literature on what is, after all, the most critical of all subjects-- whether school size and crowding affects learning and emotional growth. A section of the Harvard Graduate School of Education devotes itself to just this question; Lexington residents who work elsewhere are also in- volved with aspects of the same question. 'Very little consideration is given in the report to predictions of birth and school-age population trends in the 1980' s. No assessment has been made of buildable land in Lexington; one large buildable tract could, if devoted to single-family homes, fill at least one existing school. 'There is nothing in tonight' s report about the potential impact of school closings on property values and community participation in the very heart of this .town. 'The higher-numbered options in the report consider ways of rear- ranging the location and, by implication, the kind of education of our children. But before we move into the justification for such a move in terms of schools we must surely wish to consider the educational costs and benefits of middle school vs. junior high education, of the optimum size for a high school, of the optimum size for the middle schools, and so on. These are new notions for Lexington. I trust that we will want to address these basic and contentious questions of policy. 'We may wish to know more about busing costs under each of the schemes. Figures are provided, but they may or may not be based on a new scheme for townwide busing. We know how radically our costs were altered when we shifted the organization of busing two years ago. 'Let me urge the School Committee, taxpayers, and the parents of the students now and in the future to approach the resolution of this issue in a spirit of openness and factfinding. We cannot be too careful. And we must always consider whether or not this is one of those ques- tions for which the solutions are counter-intuitive. I would prefer not to choose among any of the options until this committee has pain- stakingly sifted the already available and the still to be obtained evi- dence, and until we have--as the superintendent suggest--consulted fully, and I must emphasize the word fully, with the parents, students, and teachers who will be affected by any actions which we may choose to take. This is one of those watershed issues when we will all want justice not only to be done, but to be seen to be done." Page 17 January 24, 1977 Mr. Michelman summarized couuuents of a- prepared memorandum as his response submitted to Dr. Lawson. "Measurements of Capacity and Excess Space Dr. Lawson's study (P.1) lays down, as one of its educational guide- lines, that of ensuring that students will be able to receive their in- struction in art, music, and French in separate classrooms specially des- ignated for these subjects. (The study does not, however, indicate what allowances have been made for special education space (tutoring aside) or for possible expansion of services in that area. This is a question that needs explicit answering.) The study also proposes to calculate the student load capacities of the several elementary buildings by mul- tiplying the number of available classrooms by a standard class size figure: 24 for grades 1-6 (P.3) , 16 for kindergartens. But when we look at the charts that show the building capacities (P. 5, e.g.) , we see that several schools now must use "shared" or "substandard" spaces for art, music, and French (in contravention of Dr. Lawson' s guideline) ; and, as nearly as I can tell, no allowance has been made in the count of available "1-6 classrooms" to reflect possibly necessary reassignments of classroom space to special rooms for art, music, or French (not to mention reading, tutoring, or special education) . For example, Fiske is credited with 16 "1-6 classrooms" but the charts also show insuf- ficient or inadequate space for music, French, reading, and tutoring. Inspection of the "Existing Fiske School" plan at P. 15, of the School Facilities Study (Drummey, Rosane & Anderson) , together with Mr. Como' s memorandum of July 14, 1976 on "Programs and Spaces," strongly suggests that Dr. Lawson' s art-music-and French-rooms guideline cannot be satis- fied at Fiske without reducing the number of available 1-6 classrooms to 15 or even 14. We need, then, more specific information about how existing space insufficiencies for art, music, and French (and also, I should think, reading, tutoring, and special education) are to be met, and about what the classroom capacities look like after they have been met. This in- formation is needed for two reasons: First and most obviously, we have to be sure that we're not overstating the capacity of any "receiving" school. Second and less obviously, I'd like to be able to see how much "excess" space we'd have by 1981 if every school were left open and al- lowed to have separate, adequate rooms for each of art, music, and French. That would be helpful information for anyone who thinks, as I do, that there would be positive value in retaining the existing schools for their :ighborhood effects, "community" quality, and apparently effective edu- cational process. 'Class Size: Future Goals and Current Constraints Dr. Lawson' s study (PP. 1,3) takes as one of its educational guide- lines that of retaining the existing pupil: teacher ratio of 24:1. Are we sure that' s the strategy we want? Isn' t an extended period of declin- ing enrollment a golden opportunity to reduce class sizes with minimum fiscal pain? Towards the end of the study (P.50) Dr. Lawson says there would be significant savings from school closings that could be converted to educational advantage. I have some questions about that prospect (see below) , but if it is real, wouldn' t a measurable reduction in class sizes Page 18 January 24, 1977 be a prime candidate for such an educational advantage? If so, then don' t we have to be sure we'll have room in the schools we have left for the smaller classes we might want to buy with our hoped-for-savings? If we were to aim for, say, an average class size (1-6) of 20, would we have room by 1981 and _hereafter if we had disposed of four elementary schools? Bearing in mind the projected upward enrollment trend during the '80's (P.51)? As a more immediate concern, isn' t it crucial to have a class size ceiling (say, 25 or, at the outside, 26) to act as a constraint in deter- mining the acceptability of any given closure and reassignment sequence? The point will, I think, become clear in the next section of this memo- randum. 'The Immediate Impacts on Fiske and Hastings and Bridge of Closing Hancock Next Year I have already raised the question of whether Fiske' s capacity for grades 1-6 is really 384 if separate and adequate provision is to be made for music, French, reading and tutoring (see P. 2, above) . Now I raise the question whether we don't need to see room-by-room class size break- downs for Fiske and Hastings (not just a single, average pupil-teacher ratio for grades 1-6) if Hancock were to be reassigned to those two schools next year. Only with such a finer grained view can we hope to gauge the actual impact on real life students of taking this step. If it turns out that a significant number of classrooms would be oversized, or that the only way to avoid that result is to delay the provision of adequate spaces for art, music, or French that our superintendent sees as mini- mum requirements for an appropriate educational program, then there is cause for grave concern. School closings and reassignments are fateful and sensitive events carrying enormous--partly symbolic--community sig- nificance; events which it would, in my view, be a drastic mistake to launch without firm assurance that the resulting educational circumstan- ces will not, even temporarily, be or be reasonably perceived as over- crowded or in any other wa;- sub-standard or impaired. I have undertaken to develop on my own the finer-grained view that I think we need. The results are set forth in the Appendix to this memorandum. To my mind they are disturbing. They suggest that we should at the very least for- bear from closing Hancock for another year. I think I am as aware as anyone of the various reasons for wanting to get on with a school clos- ing program, if we are to have one at all, without further delay. I sympathize with the strong wish to that effect expressed by Dr. Lawson at the very beginning and the very end of his study. But, frustrating as it may be, I think we must absolutely resist any temptation to take this step before the time is amply and demonstrably ripe, educationally. Amidst all the uncertainties I feel, the one thing I feel certain of is the need to be sure that community and staff understand that any school closing decision we might make was made because we were convinced that it was, all things considered, an educationally advantageous course of action. That overriding need argues strongly, in my judgment, against chancing even transitional exposure of students to even mild overcrowd- ing or denial of access to facilities that the superintendent says should be standard in every school. 'There is a further question about the numerical data related to this proposed reassignment. There will be, next year, 159 "Hancock" students to reassign. Comparing PP. 4 and 11 of Dr. Lawson's study Page 19 January 24, 1977 we see that Fiske will receive 40 of these (392 minus 353 and Hastings will receive 96 (395 minus 299)--leaving 23 to go somewhere. Will those 23, wherever they go, require assignment of an additional teacher? If so, the teacher-force saving from closing Hancock would drop to 2. Those 2 will, I think, disappear in the next section of this memorandum. 0 'Teacher-Cost Savings The cost savings projected by Dr. Lawson (P. 49) include, as a major component, anticipated reductions in classroom teachers thought to be made possible by school closings. But we need to see in detail how those reductions in force are arrived at, so as to be sure that we are not con- fusing teacher force reductions made possible by declining enrollments, or those made possible by upward pressure on class sizes, from those truly made possible by school consolidation. Simply as a matter of arithmetical reason, it seems implausible that consolidating would allow us to save on classroom teachers if we really mean to hold class size constant. The reason is stated in the Report of our Financial Implications Study Committee (P. 9) : ". . .Pupil/teacher ratios are quite close throughout the elementary school system. The ratio is maintained in the smaller schools by combining classes; a prac- tice now found in over 30% of the elementary school classrooms." If no schools are far off the system-wide average ratio, consolidating cannot save on classroom teachers. The point is well illustrated by the figures Dr. Lawson has given us pertaining to next year. He anticipates a saving of 3 classroom teachers if we close Hancock, as follows: 6 who would have taught at Hancock won' t be needed there, but I will transfer to Fiske (which will have 16 instead of the 15 to be assigned if Hancock stays open) and 2 will transfer to Hastings (which will have 15 instead of the thirteen to be assigned if Hancock stays open) . There will, indeed, be a "saving" of 3 teachers if we close Hancock next year; but, as the following figures,I think, show, that saving will result not from consolidation efficiencies but from upward pressure on class sizes (made necessary by the fact that Fiske and Hastings between them can offer a maximum of 31 classrooms to accommodate their "own" populations plus the Hancock reassignees) : 1977-78 system-wide ratio (all schools open) 133:2929 = 1:22.4 1977-78 system-wide ratio (Hancock closed) 130:2979 = 1:23.3 1977-78 ratio, Hancock (if open) 6:140 = 1:23.3 1977-78 ratio Fiske (if Hancock open) 15:318 = 1:21.2 (if Hancock closed 15:365 = 1:24.3 (if Hancock open and 1 additional teacher withdrawn) 14:318 = 1:22.7 , 1977-78 ratio, Hastings (if Hancock open) 13:276 = 1:21.2 (if Hancock closed) 15:365 = 1:24.3 (if Hancock open and 1 additional teacher withdrawn 12:276 = 1:23.0 (if Hancock open and 2 additional teachers withdrawn 11:276 = 1:25.1 Page 20 January 24, 1977 Summary and conclusions: Closing Hancock and dropping 3 teachers raises system-wide average class size by .9. It raises Fiske' s average class size by 1.6, and Hastings by 3.1. This carries Hastings to 1.9 in excess of the systemwide average with Hancock open or 1.0 over the systemwide average if Hancock closed. We could leave Hancock open, assign each of Fiske and Hastings 1 fewer teachers than now planned, and still get smaller class sizes in those two latter schools than by closing Hancock and dropping 3 teachers. In summary, closing and re- assigning Hancock seems not to effect any teacher saving, if the 23 students mentioned at P.5 above, require allocation of an additional teacher to some school to which they or some of them are assigned. 'Physical Facilities and Educational Opportunity It would help me if Dr. Lawson could be more specific (perhaps the matter is so intuitive that one just can' t be) about the educational importance he would attach to attending school in more modern or fully equipped facilities. It' s certainly true that if we close and reassign students from the older schools, more of our students will spend their time in the newer and better equipped plants. On the other hand, by closing schools and reassigning we shall foreclose what might be wel- come and invaluable opportunities for just having more room, for spread- ing out, for flexible and innovative grouping, for a sense of calm, for occasional quiet or privacy. It' s not intuitively clear to me that en- richment through more modern facilities and equipment is worth more ed- ucationally than just plain more room. 'Alternative Strategies For Retiring Some Existing School Space From Service This question about the educational importance of modern and highly equipped plant has been shared by some of those who have studied and advised with respect to Lexington' s declining enrollment--some of whom, as I read them, have doubted whether the best prospects for closings, if some schools were to be closed, were necessarily the oldest and small- est schools. The one advisory body that focused on this question free of all prior assumption--the Educational Program Study Committee--spe- cifically recommended that "every effort be made to keep small schools open" and that "if enrollments drop significantly in larger schools, ways should be explored to utilize parts of their physical plants for other purposes." (p. 108) °Dr. Lawson in his study has pointed out that the question of rela- tive advantages and disadvantages of smaller and larger schools is "ul- timately . . . one . . . of values and philosophy" (p. 47) , and has indicat- ed that, with respect to Lexington' s available choices, he thinks the balance of advantage lies with the more effective facilities, greater operating efficiencies, and greater programming flexibility he sees in the larger schools. (p. 50) His position is certainly reasonable and of course deserves very heavy weight in our deliberations. Still, in view of the rather different conviction expressed by our Educational Program Study Committee (and also the failure of our study committee on Financial Implications to find that our larger schools operate more cost-effectively than do our smaller ones--see pp. 8-9 of their Report) , the question of which schools to close, if any, is one on which I'd Page 21 January 24, 1977 welcome further discussion with Dr. Lawson. I'd especially welcome some elaboration of the reasons for advising against the idea (p. 50) that we might avoid the need to close a smaller school by using some portion or portions of larger schools to house a curriculum resource center or other administrative units . 'How Do We Convert Savings From School Closings Into Improved Education? I take it that we all agree that the crucial question is whether and how closing schools is likely to result in educational benefits for xington students. Because I continue to think that closing the small schools would involve a significant educational loss, I should vote in favor of closings only if convinced that, as Dr. Lawson puts it (p. 50) , the closings would yield significant cost savings that can be redistrib- uted so as to improve our educational offering on the whole. Just be- cause this is a crucial consideration, I think we need more specific fo- cus on projects and plans. We need to think about what portion of any savings we can likely recapture for educational uses--a speculation that will certainly depend heavily on what specific plans we have for educa- tional uses of those savings. If we don' t try to form some idea now of how we would plan to convert savings into educational benefits, how can we make a reasonable and defensible judgment about whether such benefits seem likely to outweigh the loss of the smaller schools? 'Enrollment Projections How sure are we that Lexington's enrollment increase during the '80' s won' t outpace the projected national resurgence (p. 51)? What happens if Lexington becomes somewhat more open to higher-density hous- ing for families? Why shouldn' t we expect that, the more we succeed in our aim of maintaining the high quality and reputation of Lexington's schools, the more we shall attract an extra share of the regions's fam- ilies with school-age children? (We know we already have more than e- nough housing to support an enrollment of nearly 10,000. If our schools are worth it, won't education-minded people with kids stra _n to pay the price of this Town's housing? How firm are our answers to these ques- tions? °Non-Educational Costs and Benefits of School Closings Insofar as the decision lies with us to make, we cannot just ig- nore the non-educational consequences of our decision. For example, we must at least be cognizant of the fact that many people think school closings will have adverse effects on neighborhood stability and atmos- phere. More concretely and even harder to ignore, the building-related costs which Dr. Lawson (p. 49) counts as part of the school-system sav- ings from school closings will not be net tax-rate savings (and, there- fore, may well not become available to us for educational purposes) if the Town retains the buildings for any purpose. On the other side of the ledger, the Town obviously would benefit insofar as a "recycled" school building was adaptable to some alternative Town use for which there is a genuine need. Some such re-uses have been suggested, but does anyone know whether they are really feasible--architecturally and struc- turally, for example? How can this decision be made without such know- ledge? Page 22 January 24, 1977 Mrs. Swanson stated that the issue had been studied for more than twenty years and that there was no more information to be gained. She said the school committee must have the courage to close schools or not to close them. She said it was dishonest to seek more information when no additional information was available. She noted that funds that are saved by closing schools will improve the education for all students. She added that the savings would amount to approximately two million dol- lars in the next five years. Mr. Wadsworth noted that when a group is of small size per grade level it makes problems of distribution so that there are limited alternatives. He said that classes should be balanced so that there would be a minimum and maximum range for the purpose of instruction. This arrangement would provide for a more economical oper- ation as well as improved education for all students. Dr. Lawson said that if the school committee wished to accept a lower class size then he would welcome a policy vote on the matter. Mrs. Swanson said that in the last year the school committee was trying to equalize class size in order to eliminate inequalities in the system. Dr. Rotberg said that redistricting models could be considered without phasing out in- dividual schools. He said that there were various re-arrangements that could be made without looking at class sizes and could be considered without school closings. The school committee agreed to schedule a public meeting on the re- port for Saturday, February 5, at Clarke Junior High School at 9:00 a.m. All parents and citizens were urged to attend. The superintendent read a distribution list for the school closing DISTRIBUTION reports. He urged citizens to read the report. He noted that approxi- REPORT mately 300 copies would be distributed to central places and to commit- tees within the Town. It was moved by Mr. Wadsworth and seconded by Mr. Brown to meet on MEETING VOTE February 3, to discuss the school closing issue and the superintendent' s report. Mr. Michelman offered an amendment as follows: That the school committee schedule at least two additional meetings AMENDMENT for the purpose of discussion of the superintendent' s study and recom- mendations. It was seconded by Dr. Rotberg. A vote was called (Yes, Michelman, Rotberg, No, Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson) . The original motion was moved, Yes, Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson, Michelman, No, Rotberg. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to appoint the following new personnel. (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the f7llowing Personnel Changes (Professional) (PROFESSIONAL (Rotberg, Brown, Unanimous) Resignations Page 23 January 24, 1977 Maternity Leave - Change of Date Leave of Absence The Superintendent informed the School Committee that the New HIGH SCHOOL England Association for Schools and Colleges would do the decennial EVALUATION evaluation in 1977-78 school year. He noted that a visiting committee would be at the high school during the month of May. Expenses for the evaluation would be contained in the 1977-78 budget. Approximately S1200 would be needed for early dismissal of students and $5,000 for expenses, room, board and travel. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was VOTED: to participate in the NEASC evaluation of Lexington. High School in May, 1978. (Wadsworth, Michelman, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to go into Executive Session at 11:00 p.m. to discuss the charac- EXECUTIVE ter and reputation of one or more individuals. It was announced SESSION that the school committee would be returning to public session VOTE later in the evening. (Swanson, yes; Rotberg, yes; Wadsworth, yes; Brown, yes; Michelman, yes) . It was VOTED: to accept the Executive Session minutes of February 17, 1976, as amended and release them to the public. (Wadsworth, Brown, Swanson, Yes, Rotberg, No, Michelman, Abstain) Mr. Michelman noted that he was not a member of the school com- mittee at that particular time and felt it would be inappropriate to vote on the matter. The following resolution was VOTED: it is the sense of the school committee that the appointment of Dr. Lawson as Superintendent of the Lexington Schools was exceed- ingly fortunate. (Rotberg, Michelman, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11:57 p.m. (Wadsworth, Brown, Uru imous) Respectfully submitted, } Richard H. Barnes Recording Secretary