Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-07-SC-min Page 34 February 7, 1977 The Lexington School Cuuuuittee held a regular meeting on Monday, February 7, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School. Those in attendance were Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Rotberg, Wadsworth, Brown, Nancy Abelmann, student representative. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Maclnnes, Pierson, Barnes and Monderer. Mrs. Judith Uhrig, 15 Vinebrook Road, told the school committee it PUBLIC was necessary to determine school closing issues on other basis rather PARTICIPATION than needs of town agencies such as the Council for Aging, and Recrea- tion Committee. She said presently the elementary schools in question all have drawbacks when they are being considered for the needs of a community center. She said this was validated by the selectmen's sub- committee who had specified the need for such a center. Mrs. Frank Sandy, 353 Emerson Road, asked what effect school closing would have on METCO, and special class students. Dr. Lawson replied that the METCO students would be placed where space is available and special class students would be placed where space is available and special class students would be handled on a case by case situation. (Since this discussion METCO students have been assigned to Hastings and Special Needs to Bridge School) . Dr. William Paul, 2 Eustis Street, presented the school committee with a report on the school closing issue that was discussed on Saturday, February 5. He said he was presenting his anal- ysis of cost and school closings for review by the school committee and the administration. Mr. Michael Carvey, 23 Edgewood Road, felt that it was necessary that additional public discussion be held on the school closing issue. He requested a second open meeting before a vote was taken to close any schools. Mr. E. Michael Allen, 5 Fuller Road, said that parents were very concerned and were not satisfied by the information presented regard- ing the school closing issue. He felt that they needed more thorough esplanations of all of the reports and requested additional meetings to discuss them. Mrs. Martha Kalil, 40 Preston Road, suggested the com- ments of Page 54 of the superintendent' s report outlined a proper course for discussion. She felt that Dr. Lawson's recommend tion that there be additional meetings should be followed. Mrs. Suzanne Larsen, 6 Fes- senden Way, said it was very regrettable that the Parent Teachers Asso- ciation Council was not informed of the meeting. Another parent suggested an additional meeting by the school com- r=ttee to allow them to respond to the plans presented by Mr. Fred Tarr, Crawford Street. Mrs. Jane Berchtold, 5 Saddle Club Road, suggested further communication with the public before the issue is decided. She suggested that the school committee look at the Drummey, Rosanne, and Anderson Report, and look at the issue of alterations and additions. She said there was no argument with the enrollment projections at all and suggested that the school committee review all available data. She, in summary, urged that the differences of opinion regarding the finan- cial aspects of the school closing issue be scrutinized and resolved. Mrs. Swanson reviewed the establishment of the Educational Program EDUCATIONAL Study Committee and the report it issued to the school committee in PROGRAM STUDY February, 1976. She said there had been reaction from the superintend- COMMITTEE ent and staff regarding the report and that Dr. Lawson upon assuming his new position in the Lexington Public Schools had contacted the members of the EPSC report during the suumter. She introduced Dr. Kenneth Hoff- man, who was chairman of the EPSC who made the following remarks: Page 35 February 7, 1977 Oral Report of the Educational Program Study Committee to the Lexington School Committee on the issue of Proposed School Closings Presentation by Kenneth Hoffman, Chairman, E. P. S. C. I would like to begin by emphasizing that I speak here tonight as Chairman of the Educational Program Study Committee (E. P. S. C. ), to present the views of the Committee, based on its report, The Lexington Elementary Schools, submitted to the School Committee in February 1976. The Committee members present tonight are James Becky Margery Daggett, Ronald Edmonds, Helen Crush, Martha Hauptman, and Leroy Keith. We are here tonight to discuss with the School Committee our conclusions about educational issues involved with the school closings issue. In doing this, it is important to have in mind the context of our entire report. ' The charge given to this Committee was quite broad: The first charge to this committee will be to define the educational program now offer. l in the Lexington Public Schools, and to des- cribe its strengths and weaknesses or problems. The committee shall define an educational program which best represents com- munity priorities (at the elementary level first). This study will provide an opportunity for parents, teachers, and other repre- sentative citizens of the Town to express their concerns and add another dimension to the information being solicited by the (School) Committee before a decision is reached relative to the School Building Survey. The charge was augmented by the School Committee in April 1975, as follows: To keep in contact with the School Committee as the work progresses. To not limit the work to issues raised in discussions of school closings, even though the committee is expected to make an input to those discussions prior to the first decision by the School Committee. It is important to emphasize that the conclusions which we reached were based upon the opinions of students, teachers, adminis- trators, parents, and other citizens: questionnaires gathered the opinions of 450 teachers and administrators, 1, 800 students in grades 4, 5 and 6, 1, 290 students in grades 7 - 12, and over 2, 000 citizens. Interviews were conducted with members of the central administration Page 36 February 7, 1977 plus principals, teachers, students and parents in the eleven elemen- tary schools. Statistical analyses of test score data were performed. In a supplementary report requested by the School Committee, the methods used in surveys, interviews and analyses were described in detail. The major conclusions reached were these: 1. The first priority cf the Lexington Public Schools should be maintenance of a teaching staff of high quality. 2. The major strengths of the system at the elementary level are: (a) quality of teaching staff; (b) autonomy and diversity of the schools. 3. The major weaknesses are: (a) the absence of sufficiently well-defined curricula in several basic subject matter areas. This causes con- fusion among parents, heavy workloads for teachers, lack of continuity of education between and within schools; (b) inadequate central support for the development and revision of curricula as well as for monitoring of indi- vidual student progress; (c) an apparent increase in the gap between student potential and performance, as the student advances through the grades. The Committee made a number of specific recommendations for dealing with curricula and central support systems. I won't take the time to restate these tonight. I would like to say this much about where discussions and/or remedies of these matters stand. The Committee regrets that discussion of basic educational matters with the School Committee has been minimal. On the other hand, we have been encouraged by several things. An important first step for dealing with curricular matters was taken by the appointment of an Assistant Superintendent for Instruction. Dis- cussions which we have had with Dr. Pierson and with the Superintendent, Dr. Lawson, indicate that they have found our report very useful in the early phases of their tenure in Lexington. The Committee would like to advise the School Committee of the need for a continuing dialogue with the staff and administration about the development of coordinated curricula and means for ensuring that students at every ability level acquire the basic skills needed in major subject areas. I Page 37 1. February 7, 1977 I would like to point out two other encouraging aspects of the handling of our report: 1. The report contained a profile of each elementary school. Dr. Lawson asked each principal to discuss with his/her staff the comments on their school and report to him as to which observations on programs in the school seemed valid, where some improvement may be called for and what steps were being taken in these areas. The Committee discussed the principals' responses with Dr. Lawson and Dr. Pierson and conveyed two conclusions to them: (i) on the whole, the responses were constructive, (ii) no further purpose would be served by having the principals discuss their responses with our Committee. 2. The profiles also served as a catalyst for increased parental involvement in understanding programs, strengths and weak- nesses of their schools. In several schools, surveys of parental attitudes were made along lines similar to the Committee's surveys and then discussed with principal and staff. Before moving to the Committee's input to the school closings issue, we would like to commend to the School Committee's attention the potential problem area mentioned earlier, involving declining per- formance with increasing grade level. No discussions of this have taken place between the Committee and the Administration or the School Committee. We would urge that the School Committee and the staff pursue this matter to determine the extent to which such a problem exists. It is potentially quite serious. In urging the pursuit of per- formance versus potential, the Committee is well aware of questions which will be raised about our use of the Myklebust formula, the use of second grade IQ scores as measures of potential in later years, and the reliability of IQ tests and standardized tests. But we feel that the consistency of the patterns we observed and the apparent gap at seventh grade level -- performance in basic subjects over one third of a year below potential -- is ample grounds for pursing this matter further. We hope the School Committee will do so. Now, to the issue of the moment. This is our first discussion with the School Committee about educational matters involved in decisions on possible school closings. To understand the Committee's observations, some further perspective is needed. The a P. S. C. was one of four citizen committees appointed in February 1975, stimulated by the discussion of the School Facilities Page 38 February 7, 1977 Study. Whereas the committees on enrollment projections, redis- tricting and cost implications were specifically intended to provide the School Committee with information and advice on possible school closings, our Committee had a much broader charge. Yet, it is important to point out that the issue occupied a special place in our deliberations, since our original scharge from the School Committee was accompanied by a list of 18 specific questions about school size, facilities, neighborhoods, etc. What the Committee did was to con- centrate on education and build an information base and an under- standing -- an educational context, if you will -- with which to address some of the specific questions which the School Committee needs to consider before deciding to close a school. Both the operative premises prior to our Committee's for- mation and the specific questions provided by the School Committee suggested that the critical things to examine were the educational pros and cons of closing the small, neighborhood elementary schools. The questions we tried to answer were these: 1. What should "equality of educational opportun-ty" mean in the Lexington elementary school system? 2. In Lexington, what are the observable effects of physical facilities on the quality of education? What are they? 3. In Lexington, are there observable differences in educa- tional effectiveness between smaller and larger elementary schools? These are tough questions. To address them, we had to learn a great deal about what goes on in Lexington elementary schools and about people's perceptions of what goes on -- this is the base I spoke of earlier. We had to search available literature. We did, and found a desert. We had to think deeply about what education means, and temper our general thoughts using the views we solicited from Lexington's stu- dents, teachers and parents. What we concluded is this: 1. Schools have two purposes: first, to instruct students in the basic skills, knowledge and appreciations which the citizenry deems fundamental to functioning as an adult in the society. Second, to provide an environment and an educational process which enhance the development of such attributes as empathy, self-confidence, a sense of identity, etc. -- attributes gene- rally regarded as basic to mental and physical well-being. The first purpose is the primary one. The second is held by citizens of Lexington to be just one step behind in importance. B Page 39 February 7, 1977 2. "Equality of educational opportunity" in our schools does not (should not) mean homogeneity of physical facilities or peda- gogical styles, but access to programs and environments which -- with the best judgement we can render -- are con- sistent with the two purposes just stated. 3. We found no significant differences of student performance on standardized tests between the three groups of schools for which we had data: very small, small-medium, medium- large. In particular, the newer schools, with facilities deemed most adequate, showed no better performance than those with facilities deemed less adequate. * 4. Human relationships, which deal with the second basic pur- pose of education, are generally in a good state of health in the Lexington elementary schools. But the quality of human relationships in three schools appear to stand out. These schools are Hancock, Munroe and Parker. This assessment was based on (i) student responses on questionnaires, (ii) dis- cussions with parent groups in schools, (iii) interviews with staff in schools. 5. Hancock School also stood out in parent ratings of educational programs. The School Committee has read the more extensive data and conclusions bearing on facilities, school size, etc. It would take far too long to summarize all of these here. Let me come to the Committee's conclusion, i. e. its recom- mendation to the School Committee. An attempt to keep school sizes small in Lexington should be made. In exploring consolidation of space, we hope that the School Committee will explore the use of wings or sections of larger schools, in contrast to closing the so-called small, neighborhood schools. Our Committee regrets that such options were not explored in the Superintendent's report and that the consideration of possible redistricting plans did not treat such possibilities. We ask the School Committee, at the very least, to consider * As our report notes, our work was hampered by not having test score data available school by school. Should such a study as this be under- taken again, we strongly urge that these data be provided. Page 40 February 7, 1977 very seriously that the closing schedule already voted proposes to close in order three vital thriving educational entities, and to weigh this against the other factors which the School Committee must consider. Following his presentation the school committee members posed ques- tions to Dr. Hoffman and his committee. Dr. Rotberg asked Dr. Hoffman if he or his committee had any second thoughts about their report or conclusions. Dr. Hoffman stated that the EPSC felt the report was ac- curate. Mr. Brown asked Dr. Hoffman what the committee would recommend in the area of school closing. Dr. Hoffman responded that EPSC had not discussed this since it was not a part of their charge; they only ana- lyzed the program aspects. Mr. Wadsworth said that two to three months of pre-testing would be necessary for any valid results and questioned Dr. Hoffman on the validity of the results. Dr. Hoffman said there was some pre-testing done to eliminate potential bias as best they could. Each member of the EPSC then made comments regarding the study. Mr. Ronald Edmonds, 3 Sheila Road, stressed the belief that the issues of educational quality and school closings were related. He said that in his opinion Lexington had what all school systems in the United States were seeking and hoped that those very qualities would not be destroyed in the resolution of the school closing issue. Dr. Leroy Keith, 11 Birch Hill Lane, urged the school committee to consider intangibles as well as tangibles in resolving the issue. Dr. James Beck, 17 Patriots Drive, stated that the couuuittee data stands, that nothing in the report pre- sented by the superintendent and administration could refute the find- ings of the EPSC. Mrs. Martha Hauptman, 19A Oakland Street, and Dr. Helen Grush, 32 Colony Road, and Marjorie M. Daggett, 9 Burroughs Road, traced the procedures and processes of the interviewing and gathering of data for the report. Members of the committee re-emphasized the quality of human relations in the smaller schools. They felt that unique environments existed in these plants. Mrs. Swanson asked Dr. Lawson to respond. Dr. Lawson stated that after carefully studying and visiting all elementary schools he felt excellent education was going on in all of them. Dr. Pierson was asked for his comments and he said there was- concern that as the enrollment declined that there would be a further fragmentation of services and that there would be less materials since they would be spread over a decreasing population. Mr. Michelman said that he was satisfied that some action to consolidate space would have to be taken in order to avoid excessively small schools within a few years; but he believed that closing Hancock School for next year would have impact on the re- ceiving schools and that the resulting real budgetary saving would be modest. Accordingly, he was inclined to move that Hancock remain open during 1977-78 while the school committee continued its work on a long- term resolution of the problem. He wondered whether other members were similarly inclined. Mr. Wadsworth said he was not. Mr. Brown said that he would encourage further deliberations such as looking at the possible Losing of a newer school and also the equitable administration of ser- vices to the schools. Dr. Lawson said that it was the responsibility of the school committee to decide policies and the administration would 3 Page 41 February 7, 1977 carry out those policies. He felt that more school co muittee direction was needed. He said no direction had been given since the issue began and he would appreciate the school committee doing so. Nancy Abelmann said that she hoped that the discussion would con- tinue since many students may suffer. She also noted that there were hostile feelings regarding the question. She hoped there would be no reaffirmation of the vote to start the school closing process. It was MOVED: to ask the superintendent and the administration to give recom- mendations after studying the closing of an entire building (Bridge) in another section of. town. (Brown, Michelman, Rotberg, yes; Swanson, Wadsworth, no) . Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services January 28, 1977 Professional Payroll #17-C $419,935.60 January 7, 1977 Classified Payrolls #14 56,900.45 January 21, 1977 #15 64,538.37 Expenses January 28, 1977 Bill Schedule #115 4,983.62 January 28, 1977 #116 3,089.26 January 28, 1977 #117 4,544.09 January 28, 1977 #118 51,474.15 February 4, 1977 #119 2,298.11 February 4, 1977 #120 5,128.61 February 4, 1977 #121 15,904.09 Expenses (Carryover) January 28, 1977 Bill Schedules #210 33.03 January 28, 1977 #211 2,806.03 Athletics February 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #22 1,275.44 January 28, 1977 Payroll #14 797 .00 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS) Driver Education-Adult Education January 28, 1977 Professional Payroll 705.29 METCO January 28, 1977 Professional Payroll 3,706.39 February 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #10 644.12 Page 42 February 7, 1977 LEADS Program January 28, 1977 Professional Payroll $ 811.53 January 7, 1977 Classified Payrolls 1,873.87 January 21, 1977 1,511.85 January 28, 1977 Bill Schedules #5 55.13 February 4, 1977 #6 131.96 Title III-Administrative Grant inuary 21, 1977 Classified Payroll 240.00 MTA Southwick Salary January 28, 1977 Professional Payroll 745.38 METC0 January 7, 1977 Classified Payrolls #9 613.47 January 21, 1977 #10 1,169.28 ESEA Library January 28, 1977 Bill Schedules(Math Cl.) #4 140.98 January 28, 1977 (Title II) #6 22.79 February 4, 1977 (Title III) #7 280.40 Bus Ticket Acct. January 28, 1977 Bill Schedule #4 1,399.95 Pupil School Material Recovery February 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #5 39.00 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to elect the following New Personnel. (Michelman, Brown, Unani- mous) Ms. Pamela J. Vartigan (B-1) Effective Feb. 14, 1977 Bus. Ed. Sr. High Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following Personnel Changes (Professional) . (Michel- (PROFESSIONAL) man, Brown, Unanimous) Resignations Maternity Leave Leave of Absence Retirement t Page 43 1 February 7, 1977 Geoffrey Pierson presented a report on a survey for a tuition SUMMER SCHOOL based program to be conducted in the summer. He said the program would PROGRAM involve dramatics, environmental science, arts and crafts, gymnastics, dance, etc. A figure would be included in the 1977-78 budget for this program. He stated that the Title I Summer Reading Program and the tu- ition based program would be in the same buildings so some services could be shared. He felt it was a worthwhile program and urged the school committee to accept the recommendation. Dr. Rotberg said it was a very good idea and felt that Lexington should devise a method to make sure it is a true self-supporting program and not one to be in- cluded in our budget. It was agreed that this was a separate item and be contained in the budget when presented to the town meeting noting the Summer Program. It was agreed that the administration would talk to the Appropriations Committee about the summer based tuition program. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was VOTED: to accept the report and program for the tuition based summer program. (Micheiman, Wadsworth, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson presented a report regarding Lexington's participation ADMINISTRATIV: in the EDCO programs for the past two years. He noted many of the pro- REPORTS grams that Lexington had participated in and expressed positive feel- ings towards these programs. A list prepared by Mr. Barnes which in- dicated approximate dollar value for the services students are receiv- ing in the Lexington Schools was disseminated by the school committee. Dr. Lawson noted that Lexington paid approximately $6,000 for partici- pation in the EDCO program, and could account for definite cash value return of over $65,000 worth of services. It was VOTED: to go into Executive Session at 11:00 p.m. to discuss matters of finances to the town and also land negotiations. It was noted that the school committee would return to public session at 11:10 p.m. (Mic'ielman, Brown, Unanimous) It was VOTED: that the school committee advise the Selectmen that the school committee has no interest in the Cotton Parcel of land for a school site. (Brown, Wadsworth, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11: 11 p.m. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary 4