Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-05-09-SC-min Page 94 May 9, 1977 On Monday evening, May 9, 1977, the Lexington School Committee held a meeting at the school administration building at 8:00 p.m. Present were Swanson, Gaudet, Brown, Michelman, Hoffman. Also pre- sent were Lawson, Spiris, Maclnnes, Pierson and Barnes. Mrs. Elizabeth Haines, 33 York Street, said that she was pleased PUBLIC that there had been progress in the Lexington Schools in the implemen- PARTICIPATION tation of Chapter 622. She said a project, Project Capable, submitted two years ago to the State Department for givernment funding was an ex- CHAPTER 622 cellent idea of what could be done in Lexington. She asked the School Committee to consider the proposal and give a response at a future meet- ing. Mrs. Georgia Glick, 21 Eliot Road, read the following statement: "On behalf of the Education Task Force, Lexington Area Chapter of NOW, I wish to comment on the Chapter 622 Report by Dick Barnes, at your regularly scheduled meeting, April 25. 'As you know, we have been involved with this issue for over four years. Over two years ago, when the Citizens Advisory Committee of Edu- cational Opportunities for Girls and Boys presented its report "Sex in- equality in Lexington' s Schools, 1973-74," as requested, we made many general and specific recommendations. The basic one was this: the Lex- ington schools should systematically implement the laws relevant to the issue of sex (race and cultural) bias in education. While a small num- ber of the professional staff has always been interested in this goal, not until the current academic year has the Central Administration taken significant active steps toward a systematic implementation. We appre- ciate their initial efforts to improve Lexington's response to this need. 'Let me divide my remarks into two parts: specific comments on the 622 Report, and some general observations about our system' s progress. ' 1. 622 Sub-committee and Compliance 'We agree with the school committee and the school administrators that the 622 sub-committee probably can function best in an advisory and resource capacity, and that compliance belongs in the Central Administra- tion and in the established building and department administrative chan- nels. While we are confident that this organization is being developed, we would like to call your attention to some specific needs here. a. At present, no qualified female staff members act as leaders of a 622 committee at either the elementary or secondary level. In our opinion, such appointments are essential to bring greater under- standing of the subtle and complex issues of sex bias. b. According to the report, neither the advisory/resource nor the compliance administration at the secondary level is well defined. We would like to see this organization strengthened. c. At present, there is no group formally recognized by the School Committee to help parents better understand their role in implementing Chapter 622. In our judgment, such a group could be very helpful to the faculty sub-committee, administration, parents, and most important, to our children. Page 95 May 9, 1977 ' 2 Resources ' I am glad Ken Hoffman asked his question about efforts to locate newer, positive resources. In our opinion, there is a great deal more that our school system can do in this area: they can take greater ad- vantage of help from knowledgeable citizens and from the Massachusetts Department of Education, regional Chapter 622 Coordinators. They can seek out active personnel in neighboring school systems (Many of whom have won federal money to implement Chapter 622 projects) and from local college and university centers. 'Now, some general observations. While our Central Administration has made significant initial efforts, our building and department admini- strators, and,, in. particular, our teachers, are really just beginning to participate in a systematic way. Therefor, we feel this is an appropriate time to establish more specific goals and criteria for a more precise evaluation of our schools' efforts. 'Let me suggest some of the major areas and some kinds of criteria that would be valuable for us to understand: 1. In-service training: We need to know the objective of these ac- tivities, the methods, who is leading and who is participating, what progress is made and problems identified, and what follow-up measures . will be taken, etc ,.. 2. Examination of instructional materials: We need a systematic procedure, with evaluation instruments, as well as measures of eliminat- ing and/or supplementing objectionable materials in all departments at all levels. 3. Curriculum development: We need to assess needs for better repre- sentation of women and minority groups in course curricula at all levels, and to encourage appropriate modifications. In conjunction, we need to encourage appropriate professional development of teachers. Regular re- ports in these areas describing the quantity and kinds of activities are important. 4. Implementation and monitoring of school policies and practices: Among other things, we need to know by numbers, what annual progress are we making in such areas as hiring and assigning staff to effect a more balanced distribution of male and female role models. We need a yearly comparison of secondary school students enrollment in elective courses, including practical arts at the junior high level, As you mentioned, we need a clearer understanding of the guidance department's role with respect to Chapter 622 and Title IX, and- I will add, to the Federal Vo- cational Education Act. "As the agency legally responsible for our implementation of Chap- ter 622, the School Coacaittee needs a more objective way to set goals and to evaluate our progress. As you know, the Citizens' Advisory Com- mittee report provided many recommendations and established a data base- line for you. What we are asking for is an updating and expansion of that. In addition, we are asking for a specific implementation plan; accordingly, I am providing you with a model from another public school system which may prove helpful, Page 96 May 9, 1979 'According to their April 25 report, our Central Administrators ex- pect to have more data on our progress in June. By that time, or as soon thereafter as convenient, we request that you both consider our sug- gestions and make a response at a future School Committee meeting." Sincerely, Georgia S. Glick for the Education Task Force Lexington Area Chapter, NOW Mrs. Swanson said that problems relating to Chapter 622 were being addressed and would take some time, since they dealt with complex issues and behaviors. She added that the Lexington Schools had made significant progress and they would continue to do so. The school committee thanked Mrs. Glick and Mrs. Haines for their suggestions. It was MINUTES 2/14/77 VOTED:to accept the minutes of February 14, 1977, as amended. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) It was! EXECUTIVE MINUTES VOTED: to accept the executive session minutes of February 14, 1977, 2/14/77 as presented. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) . It was VOTED: to release the Executive Session minutes of February 14, 1977. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, the SCHEDULE OF following Schedule of Payments were accepted. (Brown, Gaudet, Unanimous) PAYMENTS SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services April 29, 1977 Classified Payroll $ 69,809.91 Expenses May 6, 1977 Bill Schedules #162 1,756.71 May 6, 1977 #163 3,700.33 May 6, 1977 #164 32,615.19 Out-of-State Travel May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #26 248.00 Vocational Education April 29, 1977 Tuition #11 187.50 Athletics May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #33 157.50 t Page 97 May 9, 1977 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - (Non-Lexington Funds) Title III-Administrative Grant April 29, 1977 Classified Payroll .41 May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #8 15.36 ME TCO Program May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule(Spec .Acct.) #4 188.58 May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #16 13,627,20 April 29, 1977 Classified Payroll 763.24 LEADS Program April 29, 1977 Classified Payroll 1,352.12 May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #12 111.82 Adult Education. May 6, 1977 Bill Schedule #12 62.25 Dr. Lawson. reviewed the State guidelines for Student Advisory Com- STUDENT mittees. After his review, student representative to the School Commit- ADVISORY tee and chairperso of the Student Advisory Counuittee, Jonathan Miller BOARD was introduced. Mr. Miller introduced the members of the Atudent Ad- DISCUSSION visory Board: Ruth Abelman, Jonas Berman, Ann Carroll, Evanthia Spelio- tis. Dr. Lawson noted the regulations required the Student Advisory Com- mittee and the School Coawuittee meet once every other month while school was in session. He said these meetings could be general discussion or specific topics. It was agreed that the Student Advisory Board meeting be placed on the agenda every other month while school is in session,and that in the intervening months the S.A.B. should request or suggest agenda items. Mrs. Swanson agreed that it would be wise for the School Advisory Board and School Coumdittee to note topics they would like to have discussed, in order that information and/or student opinion could be obtained. Jona- than Miller noted the students were working on two activities, junior high school phasing and the student decline as it related to the placement of the ninth graders. A discussion followed regarding whether or not the student advisory board was representative of students at large. In summary, the committee was assured that the problem of representativeness had been reviewed by the Student Advisory Board and the school committee members stated they were extremely pleased that the students were conscious and sensitive to this matter. Committee member, Kenneth Hoffman, asked the superintendent of PERSONNEL schools and assistant superintendents to respond to the resignation of CHANGES Towne Conover, elementary science coordinator, which was noted as being effective June 30, 1977, with the reason given as "due to other inter- ests." Dr. Hoffman questioned why no one had asked Dr. Conover for an explanation of his resignation. Dr. Pierson stated that he had dis- cussed the matter several weeks ago with Dr. Conover who was displeased with some minor aspects of his job. However, Conover had not forwarded these facts to any other member of the administration. Dr. Hoffman said he did not understand why the administrators did not investigate the cause of resignation when given six weeks in advance. Dr. Lawson re- torted that he had spoken to Dr. Conover at least two weeks ago, and Page 98 May 9, 1977 asked him if there were any problems. Dr. Conover said, "No, but he wished to expand his professional career." Dr. Lawson also added that if a resignation did come in with advance notice it would be handled in the usual manner and would go to the personnel office. He felt there was no reason to pursue it. At this point, Dr. Hoffman agreed with Dr. Lawson, stating that he had great concern over the resignation since it would signigicantly change the science program. He said that he could not read Dr. C nover's resignation as a small event nor felt that it was a happy occasion. He said that he hoped in this case a follow-through on the resignation would occur. Mrs. Swanson stated that Dr. Conover was not certified and was hired as a consultant annually. She said that he probably felt it was wise to look elsewhere, due to "riffing". She said she was not sure that this was the case, but understood that in the past several years he had been contemplating resignation due to other interests at the university level. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following Personnel Changes. (Brown, Gaudet, (PROFESSIONAL) Unanimous) Resignations Leave of Absence Maternity Leave of Absence Other Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was TITLE I SUMMER READING VOTED: to accept the following personnel for the Title I Summer Reading PROGRAM Program for 1977. (Brown, Gaudet, Unanimous) Name Position School Salary Page 99 May 9, 1977 Name Position School Salary TITLE I SEJHNE READING PRDOR Dr. Lawson said that due to the fact that registrations had not TUITION BASED materialized as had been hoped the Sunmmer. Tuition-Based Activities PROGRAM Program staff recommendations were being held. It was decided to table the staff of the Summer Tuition-Based Activities Program, It was noted that further attempts would be made to increase participation. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, it was RE-ELECTION C STAFF AND VOTED: to accept the following staff and salaries at the level noted SETTING OF for the 1977-78 school year. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) SALARIES SECOND ELECTION Subject Step & School Name & Grade Salary Level TENURED CERTIFIED STAFF Page 100 May 9, 1979 A proposal was submitted to the school committee for a one-year TEACHING LOAD change in some department heads teaching loads at the senior high school. OF FOUR DEPART- The department heads recommended for change were mathematics, English, MENT HEADS science and social studies. Dr. Pierson explained the focus of the changes needed. He said the main areas of need were: improved supervi- sion/staff development, curriculum assessment and implementation, and articulation of the junior high school program. In order to accomplish these goals, he felt changes were needed. He said he recommended that the department heads be released from teaching responsibilities for the 1977-78 school year. He added that after an evaluation next year a recom- mendation based on the findings would be made. He said that at present, responsibilities which the department heads and department chairpersons were expected to fulfill were subtle and com- plex. He noted that there were several options available, but suggested freeing the department heads for the next year would require no additional staffing and would not affect class sizes significantly. He emphasized the need to free the department heads to concentrate on critical tasks. Mr. Michelman said that he had some reservation regarding the proposal, and asked Dr. Clune to comment as to whether the change would be a prob- lem. Dr. Clune stated that the change would be no problem at the high school level and possibly could be beneficial to department heads by permitting them to eliminate articulation problems at the junior high school level. Mr. Michelman said that his second reservation concerned the selection process of department heads. He felt that if a department head were an outstanding teacher, prior to his promotion, once achieving department head the students would then not benefit from his teaching. Mr. Spiris and Dr. Pierson said that department heads were selected on the basis of outstanding ability as teachers and management potential. Dr. Pierson indicated that if a person were an excellent classroom tea- cher, he would like to transfer that ability to supervise and develop curriculum which would have great impact on the staff and students. He felt that in this manner all students, rather than a few students, could reap the benefits of the excellence in teaching of the department head. Dr. Lawson noted that the school committee had emphasized their commit- ment to evaluation of staff and even though the proposal was not perfect, he would recommend that department heads have the time to implement the plan and recommended the proposal. Mr. Michelman then asked if any of the four department heads were teaching a special course that would dis- appear from the curriculum. Response to Mr. Michelman's question was that no courses would disappear from the curriculum. A vote was called. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept the reduction in teacher loads of the department heads for math, English, science, social studies for a one year period. (Hoffman, Brown, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson and Dr. Pierson outlined the highlights of a proposed EDCO TEACHER teacher exchange program within the Greater Boston area. This program EXCHANGE for tenured teachers permitted teachers to exchange positions with other PROGRAM tenured teachers in participating systems for one school year. Some of the systems participating in the program would be Bedford, Boston, Brook- line, Cambridge, Lincoln, Medford, Newton, Waltham and Sudbury. Dr. Pier- son noted that some of the features of the program would be to provide new experiences, share resources, and professional improvement. He felt that it would be an exciting program for staff. Committee members were most complimentary about the proposed exchange program. The vote was called. Page 101 May 9, 1979 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept participation in the EDCO Teacher Exchange Program for the 1977-78 school year. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson said that in January, 1977, the school committee voted ELEMENTARY to have the administration submit recommendations to them respecting PRINCIPALS equitable administration-supervisory staff in the schools. He said PRO-RATED TO there had been considerable discussions and meetings regarding equitable administration (principals, assistant principals) at the elementary level due to declining enrollments. He noted that a similar review of the secondary level of administration would proceed. The factors considered in the development of a formula were outlined: types of pupils, number of pupils, number of teachers, number of classrooms, etc. He stated that elementary principals agreed the most constant base to use would be number of pupils, and therefore agreed that four hundred students should be used as the base for one full-time principal. Dr. Lawson added he was supporting this figure. He explained that schools having more than four hundred pupils would have the service of an assistant to the principal for the percentage of time needed, and in this program of pro-ration, two elementary principals would be eliminated. He noted that the percent of time of the principal had been categorized in two parts--percentage of time spent as principal, and the percentage of time spent for other responsibilities, such as program manager, etc. He said this would allow the system to address the concept of program manager since it had not been sufficiently discussed in the past. Mr. Michelman. at this point expressed his concerns about the plan noting that elemen- tary principals serving as program managers was a concept that should be discussed at a future school committee meeting. Dr. Hoffman said that he voiced opposition to the program presented, since it was only a fragment of a total program. He said he felt he wanted to see the overall reorganization plan before approving any pro-ration of princi- pals. He said that even though he would support the recommendation by the superintendent he would like to see the entire plan. The school committee accepted the report of the superintendent. The consensus of the committee was the superintendent should proceed with the plan. Dr. Lawson said that an additional progress report would be given on June 13, 1977. Mrs. Dorothy Griffin, Coordinator of Food Services and Mr. James FOOD SERVICE; Maclnnes presented plans for the School Food Services Division for ORGANIZATION 1977-78. M.r. Maclnnes listed factors influencing the entire program-- the need to keep the program self-supporting, increased hourly labor rates, rising food costs, mandatory absorption of administrative ex- penses, State limits on meal prices, declining school enrollments, and necessity for compliance with the approved meals per man-hour ratio in the Food Services/School Committee Contract. Mr. Maclnnes also noted that under the proposed plan there would be some changes in organization, such as the elimination of two positions and realignment of time in other positions. Mr. Maclnnes said the proposal was a continuation of the consolidation of this division. The committee thanked Mrs. Griffin and Mr. Maclnnes for the plan. Page 102 May 9, 1979 It was VOTED: to go into Executive Session at 10:31 p.m. to discuss matters of litigation and negotiations. It was announced that the school committee would not be coming out of Executive Session later in the evening. (Brown, Yes; Michelman, Yes; Swanson, Yes; Gaudet, Yes; Hoffman, Yes) Respectfully submit ed, /Rit"hard H. l�anes 1k / Recordin Secretary