Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-05-SC-min Page 30 February 5, 1977 On Saturday, February 5, 1977, there was a special meeting of the Lexington School Committee at Clarke Junior High School at 9:00 a.m. Present were Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Brown, Michelman, Rotberg, Wadsworth, Nancy Abelmann, student representative. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Maclnnes, Pierson, Monderer, Barnes , DiGiammarino, and approxi- mately 375 citizens and 20 staff. Mrs. Swanson opened the meeting by reviewing the February, 1976, vote. She said the 4-1 vote by the school committee would start the sequence of school closings in 1977. She said with this vote the school committee began to focus on equalizing favilities for all students. She said it also meant that all information would be updated so the school committee could have a firm basis on which to make future decisions or revisions. At this point she introduced the Superintendent. Dr. Lawson summarized his report given on January 24, 1977. He said he welcomed the participation of the public and reminded everyone that the Analysis of School Closing Report was a result of questions posed by the school committee. These questions focused upon needs in Lexington for classroom space in the next few years. In summary he re- viewed the options contained in his report and said he would welcome comments. Mr. Donald White, a member of the Appropriations Committee and school committee liaison person stated that the appropriations committee voted to approve the report of Superintendent Lawson to begin the clos- ing of schools in Lexington. He noted that up to two and a quarter mil- lion dollars could be saved over a five year period. He said the com- mittee would be reluctant to accept the report if the dollar cost sav- ings were minimal or if it would hurt the quality of education. Since they felt there would be quality education they supported the report. It was also assumed by the appropriations committee that approximately $130,000 would be deducted from the next school budget due to the clos- ing of Hancock School. He said the appropriations committee hoped there would be substantial savings occuring for the taxpayer each year due to the closing of schools. Mr. Robert Hutchinson, newly appointed Town Manager said that as a future Parker School parent, he supported the Superintendent's plan and expressed commendations to the school administration for their report. He said he was sure there would be quality education going on in the Lexington Schools no matter what schools were open. He felt that the problem of declining enrollment should have been responded to prior to the present year. He encouraged the school committee to take action. He then asked Dr. Lawson if the dollar figures used were minimal fig- ures. The Superintendent responded saying that the report was based on this year' s figures and were minimal and inflation was not taken into consideration. Mrs. Williams from the Council of Aging said the elderly were seeking walk-in space in the town. She said that they needed street level space, office space, a place for classes or services, etc. She said that a location near the center of town would also be welcomed. Page 31 February 5 , 1977 Mr. John Frensina, 23 N. Hancock Street, questioned the report as it related to the educational quality of small versus large schools. He said that the school department report only contained two such analysis, where he had uncovered 16 studies on the topic as he researched the issue. He questioned why other studies had not been included. Dr. Pierson re- sponded saying that he had reviewed 22 studies on the question and felt that most reports had inconclusive results regarding school size and edu- cational quality. He also said that one particular study addressed only secondary school size. In summary, he said the results were inconclu- sive. It does not seem that school size is a determinant in quality ed- ucation. Mr. Charles Code, 15 Flintlock Road, said that he questioned the actual savings to the taxpayer. Since determinations had not been made to building utilization, the total town tax rate would not be decreased. Mr. Code also made a comment regarding staff reductions. He said staff- ing was based on student enrollment and not size of individual schools which he felt could benefit from redistricting. Dr. Lawson responded saying that there was no simple way to properly staff a school with a small enrollment, and there were higher per pupil costs in smaller buildings. Mr. E. Michael Allen, 5 Fuller Road, said that all the studies re- ferred to in the superintendent' s analysis were not consistent that small schools should be closed. He said this was not true in the Educational Program Study Committee Report nor the Deutch Committee Report. Dr. Lawson said this misunderstanding had been noted. Mr. Allen also noted that the guidelines set up would be violated in several schools. He felt that schools were being closed too early. Dr. Lawson said the need for special rooms for music, art, and French would be violated in some cases at the Fiske School next year, but even if schools remained open that would be the case. Within a reasonable period of time he felt it would be resolved. Next to speak was Mr. Jack Sarmanian, 330 Bedford Street, who ex- pressed concern for prevention of future cost. He said he rejected the concept that smaller and larger schools had inequality of education. He also felt that closing schools now could require an even larger ex- penditure at some future date and felt that the closing couldbe an un- wise action by the school committee. Dr. Pierson responded saying that it was very difficult to provide a full range of services at a very small school; the use of specialists is less effective when the school population is fewer than 200. There- fore,he felt that the quality of education in the larger schools was more effective, that a school of two to four hundred could maintain the quality of smallness while enabling the town to provide effective services at a good per pupil cost. Mr. Frederick Tarr, 4 Crawford Road, presented a plan for closing to meet the problem for declining enrollments. The plan would balance all eleven elementary schools by 1984 and realize a savings of several million dollars, while providing for a 60{ reduction in staff. In Mr. Tarr's plan he would keep all schools open and the pupil teacher ratio would never be above 24 students per class. It would require monitor- ing grades at all levels in order to have them equalized throughout the Page 32 February 5, 1977 years. It would also require busing of students in order to pro- vide proper balance. Mrs. Swanson said that she felt the school com- mittee could not respond since they had just received the proposal that particular day. Mrs. Barbara M. Dougherty, 32 Bertwell Road, maintained that the school committee was not being responsive to citizens. She said that promised dialogue for the Drummey, Rosanne, and Anderson Report had never occurred and that there had not been a public meeting on the Edu- cational Program Study Committee Report which was released almost a year ago. Mrs. Swanson replied that because the school committee did not necessarily agree,facts had been presented, but some people refused to believe the facts and thus interpreted this as being unresponsive. She added that the meeting with the EPSC Committee had not been held because school principals had only recently responded and the EPSC was looking at the data before a public meeting was held. Several other citizens expressed their reactions to the report. Mrs. Barbara Marshall, 18 Harbell Street, felt that the Deutch Report which stated that small schools do not cost more to operate should have been included in the Superintendent' s Report. Dr. Pierson stated that he was studying educational effectiveness not financial effectiveness, the Deutch Cumuittee did. Mrs. Elizabeth Muench, 24 Dewey Road, :Laintained that jet aircraft flying over Parker School could increase if the school were phased out. She said that the environmental impact should be considered. Mr. Frank Sandy, 353 Emerson Road, stated that the recreation committee voted that none of the buildings slated for closing would be suitable as a recreational center. He suggested one or part of a larger school be considered for closure, similar to the suggestion made by Mr. Brown in the past. During this segment of the meeting Dr. Rotberg and Mr. Michelman expressed surprise when Mrs. Swanson stated that there was an article #33 on the 1977 town meeting warrant which proposes a transfer of prop- erty and grounds from the school department to the town. She said that this article was submitted in keeping with the school committee vote of February, 1976, to close Hancock School in September, 1977. She noted the vote of the school committee had been transmitted to the se- lectmen at that time. Several other residents expressed concern that the Town Manager, Mr. Hutchinson, stated that he did not know what the closed schools would be used for by the town. Dr. William Paul, 2 Eustis Street, stated his concerns for some of the figures being used in the report. He felt that there were 23 stu- - dents at the Hancock School that were lost in the transfer and asked for an accounting of this number. A response was given noting that these were special needs and transfer students. Dr. Paul also said he had reservations about the savings in principals' salaries and teaching staff. Mr. Richard Eaton, former school committee member stated that he objected to the abuse by some citizens of the school committee and to the chairman in particular. Mr. Harvey Bines, 36 Clarke Street, noted his concern that school closings would have a negative effect on property values. He gave an Page 33 February 5, 1977 accounting of his own personal loss if Hancock School should close. He also illustrated the tendency of people to gravitate towards the center of town under the present structure of schools and businesses. He felt that a change in this would cause a breakdown in the neighborhood con- cept and thus destroy the town's identity. Mr. John Deutch stated that there existed substantial discrepancies between the Deutch Report figures and the Lawson report figures. He felt that they were not arrived at by mathematical errors or philosophy, but maybe a combination of both. He said that he felt before any de- cision was reached the school committee must determine the use and the projected cost of the use of any school building, and then compare that cost with the current and projected cost, if the school were to remain open. He said only then could the town make a determination. Dr. Law- son replied to Mr. Deutch saying that in December the school committee requested that a report be prepared on the school closing issue and he was not told what materials to use or not to use, nor was he asked to counsel with the chairperson or any of the Citizen's Advisory Committee who studied the school closing issue. He concluded that the report was prepared with a limited amount of time and in the best manner possible. It was also noted that_ the Deutch Committee Report used figures and in- formation of December, 1975, while the Analysis of School Closing Report made by the administration employed current statistics. At this point in the meeting several residents expressed hope that other alternatives would be considered such as the closing of a new school. Bridge School was mentioned as a possibility by several people. Frank Sandy then asked what the school committee would do if the select- men refused to accept a school from the school committee. Dr. Lawson said that if the town meeting rejected it, buildings could be used for students, other purposes or just closed permanently. Mr. Michelman ex- plained why the school committee would naturally prefer that the select- men take charge of the building if it were not to be used for school pur- poses, and said that if the town meeting voted no, despite those condi- tions, it would certainly be sending a message to the school committee. The last person to speak was Martha Hauptman, 19A Oakland St. She encouraged the people of the town to think about the role that Lexington plays. She said that the town was a place where the people had a special respect for history and things that were old. She said that since Han- cock School was the oldest elementary school in Lexington and even the oldest continually operated school in the United States should be recip- ient of special efforts in order to keep it open. She stated she reject- ed the premise that all old schools were disadvantaged. She summarized saying it was essential that it be demonstrated that the schools select- ed for phasing out which happened to the older schools, would save the town the greatest amount. Unless the town could do that she felt they were acting in. an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in a historic town. it was VOTED: to adjourn at 12:55 p.m. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary