Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-18-SC-min Page 53 February 18, 1977 The Lexington School Committee conducted a meeting at Jonas Clarke Junior High School on Friday, February 18, 1977, at 4:00 p.m. Present were Mrs. Swanson, Messrs. Michelman, Wadsworth, Rotberg, Brown, and student representative Nancy Abelman. Also present were Messrs. Lawson, Spiris, Barnes, Maclnnes, Pierson. The school committee meeting of February 18, 1977, attracted approx- imately 400 people. The main item on the agenda was the Bridge School Proposal. 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 February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll #18C $ 424,352.81 Expenses February 18, 1977 Bill Schedule #125 3,071.68 February 18, 1977 #126 3,681.77 February 18, 1977 #127 13,697.72 Out-of-State Travel February 18, 1977 Bill Schedule #18 54.10 Athletics February 18, 1977 Bill Schedule #24 959.02 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (NON-LEXINGTON FUNDS) Adult Education February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,936.40 Driver Education-Adult Education February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,007.51 METCO February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll 5,595.14 L.E.A.D.S. February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll 811.53 MIA Southwick Salary February 11, 1977 Professional Payroll 745.38 ESEA Library February 18, 1977 Bill Schedules #5 Title IV 255.45 February 18, 1977 #8 Title II 1,597.59 The Financial Statement was discussed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Page 54 February 18, 1977 Dr. Lawson introduced the analysis of the Bridge School Report. He BRIDGE SCH001_ said that in January, 1977, an analysis of school closing was presented PROPOSAL to the School Committee by the superintendent and administration, based upon four questions, raised previously by the school committee. In an- swering the questions several grade level organizations were considered using the following guidelines: (1) to retain present teacher/pupil ra- tios, (2) to disrupt as few students as possible, (3) to increase the stability of the system through school closing (4) to improve the in- struction of elementary art, music and French programs by having desig- nated classrooms for these subjects (5) to retain the present number of METCO students (6) to plan to enter approximately 50 Lexington students in the Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School each year. Re- sults of this analysis are contained in a report "Analysis of School Closings", January, 1977. He said that on February 7, 1977, the School Committee voted to ask thesuperintendentand the administration to make recommendations, after studying the closing of an entire building (Bridge) in another section of town. At this point he introduced Mr. Barnes, Director of Planning and Research, to outline the Bridge Analy- sis. Mr. Barnes listed the constraints of the study (enclosed) and the procedures. He then introduced Dr. DiGiammarino who reviewed the actual procedures in detail. Following Dr. DiGiammarino' s presentation, Mr. Barnes commented on the enrollment of Bridge School, as it would be dis- tributed to the other schools and the divisions of Bridge School dis- tricts, the comparisons of building capacities and projected student enrollments, and the basic enrollment projections on page 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Mr. Spiris and Mr. Maclnnes reviewed the estimated financial savings if Bridge School were phased out. Dr. Lawson then summarized the report as follows: The closing of Bridge School and distribution of its students to contiguous elementary schools next September would produce a number of conditions which should be noted: 1. Projected enrollments at Franklin and Hastings Schools would ex- ceed building capacities in 1977-78. 2. Increased disruption and instability would occur. - Approximately 396 students would be required to adjust to new schools in comparison to 159 involved if Hancock School is closed. - Eight schools would be designated as receiv- ing schools, as opposed to two if Hancock School is closed. - Relocation of Bridge School students into Estabrook and Fiske Schools would require the relocation of 74 and 31 students presently enrolled in Estabrook and Fiske respectively. - Two additional special needs classes would need to be relocated. Page 55 February 18, 1977 3. Two hundred and six students would have been moved from a build- ing with favorable facilities to buildings with sub-standard spaces. 4. The proposed relocation of Bridge School students affects only temporarily the question of building utilization. In 1978-79, the elementary enrollment will be lower than present numbers by almost 600 pupils with Munroe enrolling 166 students, Hancock School, 190 students, and Parker School, 210 students. 5. Based upon this information and the analysis of the impact of closing a newer and larger elementary school, it is recommended that those schools which provide more favorable facilities, such as those available in the newer, larger schools, remain open. Following the presentation, citizens were invited to comment. Mrs. Daphne Code, 15 Flintlock Rd. , said that she had concern about the abili- ty of Fiske to absorb students under this plan or any other plan. She said that the issue was clear cut and Fiske School could not take more students. Mr. Harvey Bines, 36 Clarke St. , said that the school closing issue was a matter of growing frustration to him. He said that three factors should always be considered; educational, financial and environ- mental. He noted no differences in the educational values put forth and that financial savings always could be evident to some degree, but envi- ronmental factors frustrated him the most. He said he was unclear as to the posture of the school committee and the administration. Dr. Lawson then reviewed the entire history of the school closing issue after which Mr. Bines said that he understood the issue and complimented Dr. Lawson on presenting accurate information to him. Mrs. Jacqueline Davison, 86 Spring St. , said that Lexington and the American public used to think that large was beautiful, but now felt that small is more personable and manageable. She said that the smaller buildings should not be considered for a phase-out. She stated that we could save the small schools for alternatives for students who cannot acclimate to a large building. Mrs. D. MacDonald, 46 Harding Rd. , said that Fiske was a personable plant, but not too large a building. She felt Fiske could gain by the closing of Hancock since specialists would be available full time and that even though there would be some problems at first, in the long run it would work out well. At this point, Mr. Brown moved that the school committee accept the report of February 18, 1977, regarding the school closing issue and at the same time accept the report and recommendations of Dr. Lawson in his report of January 24, 1977, regarding school closings. (Wadsworth, seconded) Mr. Michelman said that the decision was certainly with the school committee but felt there were problems with the recommendation and said he could not support a decision at this time to phase out Hancock School. He said that further investigation was needed before one could vote for a school closing action, and on the information available he thought it was wrong to close a school this year. He said there was no legal bar- rier to the school committee seeking advice and assistance for alterna- tive use of buildings. Mrs. Swanson said the Board of Selectmen would get involved with the use of buildings prior to asking the school com- mittee for comments. She said there was no reason for asking the Board of Selectmen, since she had communicated the vote of the school committee I Page 56 February 18, 1979 and had informed them of the February 1976 vote. Dr. Rotberg said that he agreed with Mr. Michelman and even though it was incumbent upon the school committee to face the issue of enrollment decline, it was a folly and imprudent to phase out older buildings without reviewing other alter- natives, especially when great savings could not occur, or could occur in other ways. He said the committee was voting to close a school before adopting a specific policy. He stated that many citizens believe it was premature to recommend school closings especially before the Town could decide on how to utilize them. He said that there were still questions of property values and other needs of the Town. Miss Abelmann said there were many questions yet to be answered and agreed with Dr. Rotberg and Mr. Michelman. She said that the students would suffer as a result of the tragic decision and she encouraged the school committee to delay action. Mr. Brown said that he was proud to be a member of the school com- mittee that appointed Dr. Lawson and Dr. Pierson. He felt that he voted for people who were most qualified to guide the system. He said that at this time, he felt that the recommendations of the administration were extremely valid. He said that he had been disappointed that plans for using parts of buildings were not acceptable, but had confidence in the reasoning. He added that he supported the recommendation. A vote was called upon the motion. (Yes, Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson; No, Rot- berg, Michelman) . Bridge School Report (next page) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was VOTED: to recommend that available and anticipated state and federal funds totaling $282,431, be used to reduce the 1977-78 school budget request. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) It was MOVED: that the superintendent be instructed to reduce the budget for 1977-78 by $129,000 reflecting the closing of Hancock School in 1977. (Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson, Yes; Michelman, Rotberg, No) . Dr. Rotberg said that he thought cuts could be made in other ways other than closing Hancock School. He said that a cut should be one of minimal impact on the instructional goals and values of the system. He felt that the Hancock closing did not accomplish this. Mr. Michelman agreed that there were other ways to effect cost savings. He noted that his "no" vote on this motion would reflect his opposition to closing Hancock, not to reducing the budget. Dr. Rotberg then moved the following motion: to reduce the Account 4130 to $32,000; to reduce Account 7300-7490 by $14,000, towels by $15,000, and Account 4225 by $1,000. He then explained his motion; stat- ing that by reducing tale temperature set up in the schools to 68 degrees, would save an additional $17,000, and by eliminating towels which he felt were unnecessary, a savings of $15,000 would occur, and that $1,000 in Account 4225 was an incentive to reduce vandalism. He said that his to - tal proposal would have an approximate savings of $77,000. In conclu- sion, he recommended the superintendent employ a teaching principal at Page 57 February 18, 1979 at Munroe, and if he so wished, a teaching principal at another school, probably Parker School. He said that this Would affect savings of an additional $13,000. In his estimation his total savings would be $77,000, and would have a minimal instructional impact and would contribute to a reduction of the tax rate as well. At this point, Mr. Brown moved to re- ' ..ce from $47,000 to $32,000 the amount of the savings in Dr. Rotberg' s motion, which would reinstitute the Towel Account. (Yes, Brown, Wadsworth, Swanson; No, Michelman, Rotberg) . A revised proposal was then presented to cut $15,000 in heat and $2,000 in the electric account for the heating at Clarke, $14,000 in new equipment, and $1,000 from the vandalism account. Temperatures would be lowered to 65 degrees. A vote was called on the motion. (No, Swanson, Wadsworth; Yes, Brown, Rotberg, Michelman) . Mr. Maclnnes then announced that the budget stood at $15,750,045 for a 4.1% increase or a dollar figure of $613,374. It was VOTED: to authorize the superintendent of schools to transmit the amount of $15,750,045 to the Town Comptroller as the 1977-78 School Bud- get. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to adjourn at 6:14 p.m. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary SCHOOL CLOSING (BRIDGE SCHOOL) 1977 - 1978 February 18, 1977 INTRODUCTION In January, 1977, an analysis of school closings was presented to the School Committee by the superintendent and administration based upon four questions raised previously by the School Committee. In answering the questions , several grade level organizations were considered using the following guidelines : 1. to retain present teacher-pupil ratios 2 . to disrupt as few students as possible by transfer to other schools 3. to increase the stability of the system through school closings 4. to improve instruction in the elementary art, music and French programa by designated classrooms for these sub- jects 5. to retain the present number of METCO students 6. to plan to enter approximately 50 Lexington students in the Minuteman Regional Vocational School each year . Results of this analysis are contained in the report, "Analysis of School Closings - January, 1977". On February 7, 1977, the School Committee voted; To ask the superintendent and administration to give recommendations after studying the closing of an en- tire building (Bridge) in another section of town. The response to this request follows. John H. Lawson Superintendent of Schools z. Closing Bridge t_hool 1977/78 • The following constraints and procedures were used in conducting this study: CONSTRAINTS 1. The options were limited to the years between 1976-1981 2. The survival ratio technique currently being used by Dr. Monderer was used to gain the projected enrollments. 3. The elementary population figures used as a basis for the pro- jections are actual student counts as of November 1, 1976. This information, supplied by Mr. Koetke, was made available by building, street and:year of graduation for the base year (1976-77). 4. The elementary building capacities resulted from discussion with each principal on current building utilization. The number of classrooms available was then multiplied by the 1976-78 LEA contract figure of twenty four. PROCEDURES 1. The 1976-77 actual K-6 enrollment student data by building and grade was obtained from the computer. 2. The printout was scanned for METCO and transfer students. These students were removed. 3. Number of students entered on 1976-77 Bridge district by street. 4. For Bridge I (immediate area surrounding the school) the school districts prior to the opening of Bridge were redrawn. 5. Bridge II was divided according to the old district lines except where impractical due to the Hancock and Parker capacities. (Reed St.area) 6. The need to gain spaces in one of the receiving schools (Estabrook) led to a successive boundary modification for Estabrook/Fiske and Fiske/Harrington districts. 7. The students in the changed districts were counted to arrive at the total number of students by grade and districts (K-6) . 8. A computer program was written to take the above population and project the districts according to the survival ratio. This produced projected populations by grade and district for the next four years. The result was building and grade enrollments without METC0 and transfers which were then hand added maintaining current systemwide totals for METCO and promoting the transfers. 3. Closing Bridge School 1977/78 Bldg Cap76-77 77-78 _ 78-79 79-80 80-81 Adams 3681 :323 306 298 _ 267 —i 247 __ Bowman 584 447 422 391 343 319 Bridge 512 443 0 0 0 0 Estabrook 392 360 389 _— 348 318 283 Fiske 416 384 400 351 296 254 Franklin 392b_ 365 611 404 357 326 Hancock 208; 181 206 190 164 143 Harrington344 309 342 304 280 257 Hastings 392 328 394 359 327 ' 293 Munroe 2081 198 188 166 162 146 Parker - 2561 244 236 10 212 185 Total 40721_ 3590 3294 3021 2726 2659 Clarke Diamond Miuzzey Total Htgh School Tora1 l 4. CLOSING BRIDGE SCHOOL 1977/78 * STUDENT FOIFICATIONS BY SCHOOL Closing Bridge School would require the following transfer of students: A - Bridge I - Add to Hancock - 27 B - Bridge I - Add to Hastings - 85 C - Bridge I - Add to Franklin. - 80 D - Bridge II - Add to Eetabrook - 121 E - Bridge II - Add to Parker - B F - Bridge II - Add to Hancock - 17 G - Minus from Estabs©ok - Add to Fiske - 74 H - Minus from Fiske - Add to Harrington - 31 Bridge - METCO Hancock 5 Franklin 8 Hastings 4 Eetabrook 4 ' 21 * 76-77 Student Population Figures COMPARISON OF BUILDING CAPACITIES WITH PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLLMENTS Closing Bridge School 1977/78 Clsrm 1-6 [ Other Learning Spaces) Regular/Special Students Capac- Class ity Rooms Kind Lib Gym Cafe Art Mus Fr Read Tutor 76/7777/78 78/79 79/80 80/81 336 32 I 1 32�',2",..------ 298/-- 26� 247 Adams 368 14 1 1 1 1 * * 1L * 1 552 32 • I 447 437.. • 376.- 331 - 31„1.--' Bowan 584 23 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ,i' 15 13 12 _ 8 1480 32 I • 443„-- Bridge 43,Bridge I 512 20 1______1_, 1 1 1 � + 1 1 L 1 1 -' % 13t3 32 '_ ' 1 1368 384 347 317 287 E=tabrook j 392 15 1 1 * 1 1 j 1 I 1 1 2 1�' S 1 j 1 1 1384 32 384 388,= 342.------- 291 - 252/ Fiske 1 416 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * * * L 12 9 i 5 2 '360 32 1 L _t I 365,; 411/ 404.-- 357_ - - 326 Franklin 392 15 j 1 1 1 t --1-, * 1 1 * * * i ..- -- 192 16 + 1 1.81 - 197 181 157 136 ./ 3=a'cock + 208 8 1 1 1 1 i * I * j * * * ,,- 312 32 1 309 , 336 - 299 - 278 . 2.56 Harrington 344 13 1 2 1 1 I 1 L 1 _4 1 I * 1 1,------ _- _ 6,:__.„--- 5 - 2 1 360 32 328 i 388 — 355-- 1 323 289-- Hastings 4 392 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 1j , 6 4% 4 4 ' 192 16 19�/ 188 166 - 162 146 eunroe 208 8 1 1 1 1 * * * * * l'" l 240 16 1 244,, 236„--- 21Q -- 212„----- 185 -- ' j'arker 256 10 1 2 1 * * * * * * c -- r-i _ 3590 -':324 j 2980: 2695, 2410-- ,----- Total 430 (Total 4072 __, _/ 53 / 41 -" 31I�- 23 *Shared or substandard spaces NOTE: In 1977-1978 Franklin and Hastings Schools world need one additional :lassrntc, LP E 6. 76/77 ENROLLMENTS K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Adams 36 37 44 I 41 - 65 39 •1 w".-_ Bowman 4U 60 61 54 82 74 76 -=1/_-_ Bridge 41 54 61 70 70 7w . 7 41-- 2856 54 50 �_ 67 64 1 .--y`. °— Estabrook 49 Fiske 29 46 40 57 75 77 60 _384 --- Franklin 43 50 46 45 72 37 72 365 -_ Hancock 15 22 24 27 31 23 39 381. -_ —-- - tarrin4oR 26_1___ 48 47 46 49 57 37 309 _-. Hastin_s 33 44 39 53 � 45 i 63 51 728 _^ 271 21 30 33 20 ! Munroe 37 30 + _798_ — _- ___. Parker 25 29 41 38 20 43 43i-__ 244 - -- �" Total 343 460 489 518 57;---r t_ 592 610 3590 _ 4891 --Clarke _ 235 271 250 — _ 756 238 251 251 _ 740 Diamond Muzzey 172 . 173 165 --1r'— Tot _203 ' - al 645 700 666 ---.-° �0 - . 10 11 12 -. - �High school I! 633 --642 700 - _-1 211 Elementary Total 3590 Junior High Total 2011 High School Total 1975 1 7. 77/78 Enrollment Projections Closing Bridge School 1977/78 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Sta.CI . dams 40 41 E 37 43 { 41 65 39 306 iowrman 41 43 55 59 52 84 73 407 15 ,ridge .stabrook 27 43 59 61 61 59 . 74 3$4 5 iske 28 39 53 44 59 80 85 388 12 'ranklin 31 61 64 57 65 85 48 411 !ancock 19 20 20 34 33 38 33 197 9 iarrington 35 31 55 49 i'53 52 61 336 6 6astin s 24 45 57 51 69 65 77 388 6 unroe 17 29 21 30 33 20 38 188 'arker 21 30 30 44 39 22 50 236 otal 283 382 1 451 472 505 570 578 3241 53 7 8 1111811[1- iatke 11111! ' ,mond rig. 10 11 12 Ugh School i,ementary Total 'unior High Total (gh School Total i i P,. 78/79 Enrollment Projections Closing Bridge School 1977/78 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Adams 26 45 41 I 37 43 J_41i_. 6S_ I 'Ja:__ Bowman 41 46 43 1 54 59 53 82 378 1 3ridge I— 3stabrook 32 33 44 57 61 62 58 347 1. Fiske 31 36 39 53 44 60 79 342 9 Franklin 33 40 62 62 57 66 P4 404 Hancock 12 22 21 1 20 34 33 39 181 9 laarrington 21 37 32 _54 50 54 51 299 5 Hastings 39 28 46 1 57 51 70 64 355 4 Kunroe 14 18 29 21 30 33 21 166 Parker 22 24 30 30 43 39 22 210 Total 271 329 387 445 472 511 565 2980 41 i 7 8 9 1 Clarke Diamond — — luzze total 10 i 11 12 - {igh School Q _ —1 — _ 1 __ __ _ — _ Elementary Total Junior High Total _ High High School Total . • . 9. ,- 79/80 Enrollment Projections Closing Bridge School 1977/78 }( l 2 ] 4 5 6 Total Sn.C] -dMS 31 7 17 44 41 267 � iovman 32 | 46 46 42 53 60 52 331 12 \ r `ridge ` stabrook 25 38 33 42 56 62 61 | 317 1 '~'-~-`---r iske 26 35 36 38 52 45 59 291 5 ranklin | 30 41 40 61 J 62 58 65 357 � -_ xucnck15 13 22 20 20 34 33 157 7 arrin&tnn 29 22 38 31 � 53 51 54 278 2 ----- ---- - | asttngs _ 32 41 __ 28 44 56 52 70 323 4 ' ,.unroe 16 15 162 — . -ker 21 23 Id 30 30 44 39 212 2�7 303 329 i 377 439 481 589 2695 Jl `� � ^^ = ___ <__._---=_^ === - ! i 7 8 9 ! i!xrkc --`--- ^----` -- - -----^ I x '� znnd -- _- -_---__- __ i ! -- ~~-^ r'z/ -=. __-_ __--__-_' -= ____-==-____ _________ ___ l0___ ] 1 12___ ^ �.hSr!/oo} � ^ __ �, ' ======= --_- _ _ ������ ��=_= ======-__� \rmyntary Total / v,ilur8(0Total 5 l`'`ol Total /, ~ 10, 80/81 Enrollment Projections Closing Bridge School 1977/78 K 1 2 3 4 5 G Total Sp•t, \dams 22 33 28 44 40 7t7 43 I 247 3owman 27 37 47 45 42 54 59 II{ lit 8 Bridge Eatabrook 23 29 38 32 42 57 61 282 I ?lake 19 28 35 iS 38 53 44 252 2 Franklin _ 28 37 41 40 60 63 57 326 iancock j 10 18 13 22 20 20 33 136 7 iarrington 27 34 ' 23 37 31 54 50 _ 256 I €astings 33 36 42 27 44 57 50 289 _ 4 tunroe 14 19 15 18 29 21 30 146 'arker 11 24 24 24 29 30 43 3.85 o tat .214 295 306 324 375 446 470 2430 �23 7 . 8 9 p _ :larke Diamond :uzzey — *ota2 _! — — -- — 10 1 11 12 `igh School, 1 . . ^,______________________ ________ :lementary Total unior High Total tigh School Total 11. • SCHOOL CICS/NG - ESTIMATED FINANCIAL SAVINGS BASED ON 1977-78 PROJECTED COSTS Bridge 1977 - 78 Principal ( I ) 26,000. Asst.Vrincipal (.5 ) 10,000. Secretary ( 1 ) 9,700. Custodian ( 3 ) 32,000. Custodial Helper None Food Services 12,200. Teachers - @ 14K ( 2 ) 28,000. Spec. - Library (.8 ) 11,200. Art ( 15) 2,100. Music Phys.Ed. French Reading Pupil Serv.-Counselor (.7 ) 9,800. Speech Nurses (.2 ) 2,800. Resource (.5 ) 7,000. (150,800.) Expenses heat 16,700. Electricity 21,500 Water 150. Gas 250. Telephone 1,200. Pay Phone None Rubbish 950. (40,750.) 191,550. Additional Transportation None Total Estimated Saving 4191,550, 12 , SUt '1ARY The closing of Bridge School and distribution of its students to contiguous elementary schools next September would produce a number of conditions which should be noted: 1. Projected enrollments at Franklin and Hastings Schools would exceed building capacities in 1977-78. 2, Increased disruption and instability would occur. - Approximately 396 students would be required to adjust to new schools Ln comparison to 159 involved if Hancock School is closed. - Eight schools would be designated as receiv- ing schools, e:- opposed to two if Hancock School is closed. - Relocation of Bridge School students into 'Estebrook and Fiske Schools would require the relocation of 74 and 31 students present- ly enrolled in Estebrook and Fiske respect- ively. - Two additional special needs classes would need to be relocated. 3. Two hundred and six students would have been moved from a build- ing with favorable facilities to buildings with sub-standard spaces . 4. The proposed relocation cf Bridge School students affects only temporarily the question of building utilization. In 1978-79, the elementary enrollment will be lower than present numbers by almost 600 pupils with Munroe enrolling 166 students, Hancock School, 190 students , and Perker School , 210 students . 13. 5. Based upon this information end the analysis of the impact of closing a newer and larger elementary school, it is recommended that those schools which provide more favorable facilities, such as those available in the never, larger schools , remain open.