Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-27-SC-min Page 157 September 27, 1977 On Tuesday evening, September 27, 1977, the Lexington School Com- mittee met at the School Administration Building at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Gaudet, Brown, Hoffman, Michelman, and Student Representative Miller. Also present were Lawson, Barnes, Maclnnes, Monderer. In the Public Participation Period, Mrs. Swanson presented Mr. PUBLIC George E. Rowe, Jr. , a plaque in recognition of his contributions to PARTICIPATION the school system. It was MINUTES 8/8/77 VOTED: to accept the minutes of August 8, 1977 as corrected. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept the minutes of September 13, 1977, as corrected. MINUTES (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) 9/13/77 VOTED: to approve the executive minutes of September 13, 1977, as EXECUTIVE presented. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) MINUTES 9/13/77 It was EXECUTIVE MINUTES - VOTED: to release to the public the executive session minutes of RELEASE TO September 27, 1977, with the exception of the paragraph per- PUBLIC 9/27/77 taming to Grievance 76-77-7. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Hoffman, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services September 16, 1977 Classified Payroll #7 $ 65,942.16 September 9, 1977 Professional Payroll #6P 424,851.78 Expenses September 16, 1977 Bill Schedules #24 7,703.33 September 16, 1977 #25 6,054.97 September 16, 1977 #26 7,095.31 September 16, 1977 #27 9,569.63 September 23, 1977 #28 8,600.41 September 23, 1977 #29 1,693.75 September 23, 1977 #30 15,198.50 September 23, 1977 #31 23,361.13 Expenses (Carryover) September 23, 1977 Bill Schedules #204 2,298.00 September 23, 1977 #205 3,080.00 Out-of-State Travel September 16, 1977 Bill Schedule #1 182.42 Athletics September 16, 1977 Bill Schedul #6 3,018.00 Page 158 September 27, 1977 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington :nds) METCO Program September 16, 1977 Classified Payroll $ 1,525.65 September 9, 1977 Professional Payroll 3,061.89 September 16, 1977 Bill Schedule #9 355.75 LEADS Program September 16, 1977 Classified Payroll 1,957.25 September 9, 1977 Professional Payroll 856.19 September 16, 1977 Bill Schedules #21 2,432.53 September 23, 1977 #22 57.37 PL-94-142 Grant September 16, 1977 Classified Payroll 360.99 PL-89-313 Grant September 9, 1977 Professional Payroll 548.69 Adult Education September 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #1 15.00 Driver Education September 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #2 100.00 Low Income Program September 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #1 1,614.21 Pupil-School Material Recovery September 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #1 384.74 Insurance Claim September 16, 1977 Bill Schedule #1 184.95 The second reading of the proposed School Closing Policy began with SCHOOL CLOSE Mr. Hoffman presenting general couuuents pertaining to the draft docu- POLICY (SECOt ments. He said one of his main concerns was the guidelines were more READING) quantitative than qualitative. He said the committee should address it- self to the qualitative concerns such as the diversity of educational options rather than quantitative items of ratios and enrollments. He added that the draft presumed certain implicit guidelines which he felt should be explicit in the policy. He elaborated his concerns and said that consolidation of space was essential as the enrollment declined, and an area that needed to be analyzed. He noted that consolidation should take place, but no option was available for partial closing of buildings. He counuented that the third guideline for criteria was age, but no mention was made of the newer schools. He said that the older schools might not be the best ones to phase out. He felt that it would be a mistake for the town and school committee to always phase out only older buildings. He noted that the policy specified criteria that was structured toward four specific schools rather than a policy for all schools. He summarized saying it was difficult to wrestle with the document as presented, and hoped the final policy would reflect some of his concerns. Page 159 September 27, 1977 Mrs. Gaudet stated that the policy seemed appropriate for any school, and the discussion would be more appropriate when specific schools were discussed. Mrs. Swanson then read the preamble to the School Closing Policy, and noted that the committee had gone through the process once, and a recommendation had been made in February, 1977. She felt it was time to focus the energies of staff on curriculum, and by establishing a School Closing Policy staff would be able to channel their energy and talent to the critical matter of curriculum. Mr. Hoffman then stated he felt that the preamble was rooted in different values--not consistent with the feeling of some of the committee mem- bers and townspeople. He recommended that extensive discussion be held regarding the preamble and suggested policy. Mr. Brown said that he felt that the policy as written seemed reasonable, due to discussions of past and present, and the vote of February, 1977. He added that the School Committee should proceed un- less there was a change in the vote. Mr. Michelman said the issue was a very sensitive one, and felt that the committee needed to be clear with themselves and others. He said he was very sympathetic with many of Mr. Hoffman's concerns, al- though he had some minor disagreements. He rioted that if he thought there were any realistic chance to reconsider the school closing vote, he would want to do it on the substance of Mr. Hoffman' s questions. He added that he recognized that there would be not such change, and, therefore, considered the superintendent's recommended policy reason- able and responsive to the vote and view of a majority of the School Committee. He said he hoped he could make some contributions to the content of the policy to make it the best possible policy even though he didn't support it in principle. At this point in the discussion, several changes were agreed upon in the proposed document. It was de- cided that these changes and additional changes would be discussed at the next reading. Student Rights (Second Reading) was deferred to a future meeting. STUDENT RIGHTS SECOND READING The second reading of the Minimum Staffing Level Policy was held. MINIMU°i STAFFING Mr. Michelman asked for a clarification of the suggested policy. He SECOND READING asked if an individual school could close rather than all schools if the minimum level of 70% staff attendance was not reached. Dr. Lawson said it was possible that an individual school be closed. Mrs. Gaudet asked if it were possible that an individual school might be in session after other schools if the school had not met the minimum state requirements, Dr. Lawson responded in the affirmative. It was proposed to add changes introduced to the paragraph descrip- tion of the policy. These suggestions were accepted, and it was moved that the policy of Minimum Staffing Level, as presented by the superin- tendent, including changes, be accepted by the school committee. (Michel- man, Hoffman, Unanimous) A Page 160 September 27, 1977 "A staffing level of 70% (Professional Staff) is established as the minimum level necessary to provide for student safety and to allow for modified implementation of the instructional program. 'On days when a significant number of students are absent for justi- fiable reasons, instructional programs should be modified so as to pro- vide a worthwhile experience for those in attend ti RBHE diS vaan i - ing those who are absent. 'Whenever it can be anticipe i in advance t'. • f4-L.; nu r of students will be absent from s_ . of on a pe. - ii_�..iar 4- , fo- 3Y. i `a able reasons, care will be taken to avoid scheLs curis` . s ling or extra-curricular events on that day, including =seL:_ ee, pertnr'm- ances, athletic contests, tests, and other events Jifipgsable signifi- cance in school life." The Five-Year Calendar (Second Reading) „as defer a future FIVE-YEAR meeting. CALENDAR SECOND READI The second reading of the proposed guide*.ine: tor psychotherapy PROPOSED was held. Dr. Monderer was asked to elaborate on the guidelines. He GUIDELINES C said the guidelines were presented as a result of discussions with staff PSYCHOTHERA: and superintendent. He felt that the adoption ,rf guideline" could re- (SECOND REAL solve some problems but not all. He said many major problems have re- sulted from various interpretations of required services. He added that there were no funds in the budget this year for this service. Mr. Michelman said there could be problems under any set of guide- lines that were developed to meet specific objectives, but felt it was typical of policy development. He then requested that Dr. Monderer monitor the services and payment of services since private insurance companies were disclaiming responsibility for any psychotherapy ser- vices stated in educational plan. Dr. Monderer said that he would dis- cuss it with town counsel also. Dr. Lawson said there had been many differences in the past regard- ing whether or not to provide psychotherapy. He said the development and acceptance of guidelines was necessary. He felt that it would be best to have guidelines, and then implementation of services rather than continue past Practice. He added that even though the guidelines were imperfect, it would be responsive to a need and to the issue of 766. Mrs. Gaudet asked if there would be any exceptions to the service providers. Dr. Lawson said he expected there would be some exceptions but these would need regulation. Frank Michelman suggested that an ad- ditional expression be included in the guidelines, "That exceptions be granted with expressed approval of the superintendent and School Com- mittee", Page 161 September 27, 1977 Mrs. Swanson then questioned whether the three service providers listed were evaluated and known to provide quality services. She asked what process was used for evaluation. Dr. Monderer said there had been periodic reviews of the services of these providers. Also, there had been multiple contracts with these agencies through past experiences and he and staff felt satisfied with the services. He' added that one agency could provide multiple services within its organization. Mr. Hoffman asked if any staff regarded any of the agencies listed as un- satisfactory when providing services, or did the list contain only those providers who provide specific services. Jack Monderer repeated that these three agencies had contact with the schools over the past few years through different programs, and some evaluation had been made but the listing represented agencies for which the personnel of schools had confidence in their quality. He said there was no attempt to down- grade any other agencies, and felt that other agencies would be welcomed on the list. Dr. Lawson concluded the discussion by saying 766 mandates services and if we wished to provide these services properly, he would suggest development of guidelines and control of the method of services. It was VOTED: to accept the guidelines of psychotherapy with the inclusion of the expression, "Exceptions will be made with the expressed ap- proval of the superintendent and school committee". (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the new personnel (professional) (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) ) Upon the recotmu•endation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANCES VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (classifi.ed) (Michelma.n, (CLASSIFIED) Brown, Unanimous) (See next page) 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) ---- PERSONNEL CHANGES (Classified) • • l PERSONNEL CHANGES (Classified) Page 162 September 27, 1977 Maternity Leave Degree Change Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTE ON STATE REGULATIONS ON VOTED: that regulations regarding free and reduced prices of milk and ELIGIBILITY FOR meals, described as follows be approved. (Michelman, Brown, FREE & REDUCED Unanimous) PRICE-SCHOOL LUNCHES "Federal and State Regulations require that school districts pro- vide free milk and free lunches to needy students. It also recommends that provision be made for reduced prices for others. Guidelines con- cerning gross family income are established as a major criteria. We are required to do the following: 1. Send a notice and application to the home of every child enrolled. Copy attached to be sent home during opening week of school. 2. Notify all applicants of decisions concerning applications within 10 working days. 3. Send a "Hearing Procedure" to those who have been denied. (Copy attached) 4. Notify public and private welfare agencies of the program. en 5. Publish information regarding the program in the local paper. (published in the September. 8, 1977 issue of the Lexington Minuteman) 'The school committee must formally vote to accept the policy and procedures each year. We have complied with the other requirements and request that the school committee confirm the program by an official vote." Grievance #76-77-6 was heard in open public session. Mr. Richard GRIEVANCE Rossi, represented Mr. Rossi made the statement of #76-77-6 grievance. He said that his client was grieving Article yl-H of the Contract, and the procedure involved in the involuntary transfer of an individual which was not in the spirit of the Contract. Mr. Michelman said that the school committee could hear an appeal in regard to the question of teacher involuntary transfer, but was not sure what para- graph XI-H had to do with the grievance. Mr. Rossi reiterated his statement. Dr. Lawson then reviewed the grievance up to the transfer of to the Diamond Junior High School. Mr. Davenport then was asked to review the process he used and the criteria he applied in the process. Mr. Davenport reviewed his process and delineated his criteria, includ- ing those mentioned as examples in the Contract for consideration in such cases. He said that he had conferred with each person being con- sidered for transfer before making a final decision. Mr. Rossi then said the best professional conditions for staff and were not HEARING PROCEDURE WHEN ELIGIBILITY IS DENIED OR WHEN CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY IS CHALLENGED Your application for free milk, free meals, or reduced price meals has been denied, The school district agrees to use a fair hearing procedure for parents' appeals of the school 's decisions on applications and for school officials ' challenges to the correctness of information contained in an application or to the continued eligibility of any child for free or reduced-price meals or free milk. During the appeal and hearing the child will continue to receive free or reduced price meals or free milk. A record of all such appeals and challenges and their dispositions shall be retained for 3 years. Prior to initiating the hearing procedure, the parent or local school official may request a conference to provide an opportunity for the parent and school official to discuss the situation, present information, and obtain an explanation of data submitted in the application and decisions rendered. Such a conference shall not in any way prejudice or diminish the right to a fair hearing. The hearing procedure shall provide the following: 1. A publicly-announced, simple method for making an oral or written request for a hearing. 2. An opportunity to be assisted or represented by an attorney or other person. 3. An opportunity to examine prior to and during the hearing, the documents and records presented to support the decision under appeal . 4. Reasonable promptness and convenience in scheduling a hearing and adequate notice as to the time and place of the hearing. S. An opportunity to present oral or documentary evidence and arguments support- ing its position. G. An opportunity to question or refute any testimony or other evidence and to confront and cross-examine any adverse witnesses. 7. That the hearing be conducted and the decision made by a hearing official who did not participate in the decision under appeal. 8. That the decision of the hearing official be based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing and made a part of the hearing record. 9. That the parties concerned and any designated representative thereof by notified in writing of the decision of the hearing official. 10. That for each hearing a written record be prepared, including the decision under appeal, any documentary evidence and a summary of any oral testimony presented at the hearing, the,decision of the hearing official and the reasons therefor. and a copy of the notification to the parties concerned of the hearing official's decision. 11 . That such written record be preserved for a period of 3 years and shall be available for examination by the parties concerned or their representatives at any reasonable time and place during such period. Page 163 September 27, 1977 being considered because the transfer, could have detrimental effects on career plans which were focused at the high school level. Mr. Rossi added that scored high in the criteria and little consideration was given to Mr. Robbat to assist him in his long range professional development. He said that his client had: the characteris- tics needed to fulfill the role at the high school level. He stated it was the responsibility of the school committee and department to use the criteria to foster teacher development rather than just consider the needs of the specific department. He concluded by saying he felt that the needs of the students could be met better with being as- signed to the high school and professional growth would be advanced. Mr. Davenport then said that it was partly a problem of an excess of American History teachers. He saw no reason why services could not be extremely valuable to students at the junior high school level and felt that after all considerations had been given, and criteria reviewed, the transfer of to the Diamond Junior High School Social Studies Department was most appropriate. Mr. Davenport added that the other options available were dismissal of the teacher since there was an excess of teachers at the high school social studies department. Mr. Rossi then said he felt that the criteria taken into consideration did not meet the needs of the staff and in par- ticular. Mr. Hoffman interjected, saying the contract notes examples of criteria that one would use to arrive at a decision, and that was the intent when the draft document was negotiated. He stated it was obvious that the criteria were examples to be considered and were not finite. Dr. Lawson then read the criteria and said that Mr. Davenport did use the criteria plus other inputs. Mr. Lague, representing the LEA, said that the level change to junior high school should not be considered by anybody as a demotion as it did require a different set of criteria and preparation to teach at the jun- ior high level. Mr. Brown said that considering the options that were available, and the characteristics of the person being considered, it would be extremely productive professionally for a teacher to accept the challenge of a junior high school placement. He felt that perhaps the rewards would be extremely great to the person as well as to the students. said that he had been transferred because of his flexibility, and the characteristics that he had demonstrated at the high school were now being stipulated as an example for others. He felt that this was inconsistent with the transfer. Mr. Michelman then said that it seemed the grievance was not about the procedure, but about the decision, but noted that the decision was a grievable item before the school committee. Mr. Rossi then read the preamble to the Contract which he said charged the school committee to look after the professional development of an individual and felt that this should have been taken into consideration. At this time the committee thanked the participants and decided to take a vote. It was VOTED: to deny Grievance #76-77-6. (Brown, Hoffman, Unanimous) 1 4 Page 164 September 27, 1980 A new proposed evaluation system for administrators was presented PROPOSED EVA to the school committee. Due to the lateness of the hour, the system TION SYSTEM was not discussed. It was deferred to a future meeting. ADMINISTRA`. An updated series of role descriptions for all administrators was ROLE presented to the school committee. DESCRIPTION Dr. Lawson presented a memo from Dr. Monderer that comments on the SCHOOL CidSU: changes in the new census law which shifted the responsibility to the Town Clerk in Lexington. He noted that this responsibility had been formerly carried out with the Town Clerk's assistance by the Director of Pupil Services. It was also noted that this year the Lexington School Committee would pay 50% of the total census but next year's would now be about 28%. Dr. Monderer said that he was going to meet with Mary McDonough, Town Clerk, to discuss the transition, responsi- bilities, changes, implementation and financial responsibilities. Copies of curriculum workshop materials developed this past summer WORKSHOP were presented to the School Committee. MATERIALS A letter from Mrs. Malin was received and reviewed by the school TRAFFIC SAFE' committee, regarding the safety corn.iderations on Paddock Lane. Mrs. COMMITTEE Malin and a group of residents stated that they were eligible for bus transportation to Bowman School because of safety conditions. Mr. Barnes said that he had reservations since he had no information to comment on as far as the safety hazards were concerned. The School Committee after a brief discussion decided to request a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Committee. It was VOTED: to request the Board of Selectmen have the Traffic Safety Com- mittee render a recommendation on the safety considerations of Paddock Lane and Follen Road. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) It was noted that Lexington High School had twenty semi-finalists SEMI-FINALIS in the Merit Scholarship competition which was the highest of any public FOR 1978 high school in New England. This information was then released to the Lexington Minuteman. A discussion of a communication regarding Tax Base - Mass. League SCHOOL COMM : Suit, from Mrs. Battin was held. It was agreed that Mr. Michelman con- REPORTS - TA> tact Mrs. Battin regarding the information and details concerning the BASE - MASS. retrieval of information for the suit based on a change of tax base in LEAGUE SUIT Massachusetts. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11:15 p.m. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted - -:rd H. BarpE's /k Recording Sea7retary