Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-10-24-SC-min Page 171 October 24, 1977 On Monday evening, October 24, 1977, the Lexington School Colwaittee met at the School Administration Building at 8:00 p.m. Those in attend- ance were: Swanson, Gaudet, Hoffman, Brown, Michelman and student repre- sentative Miller. Also present were: Lawson, Maclnnes; Spiris, Pierson, Barnes. Mrs. Swanson read a letter from the Littleton School Committee re- SCHOOL COMMITTEE questing support to modify MSSPA Rule #19 (Massachusetts Assoication REPORT-LITTLETON Secondary Schools Principals Association) . The communication from the SCHOOL COMMITTEE Littleton School Committee stated that Rule #19 was not fair since it RESOLUTION restricted students to one school activity in sports and also restrict- ed non-school team activities. The Littleton School Committee suggest- ed that no reference to outside competition be included in Rule #19, and wished to ask the Lexington School Committee' s delegate to the Massachu- setts Association of School Committees to so vote. Mr. Lord, Director of Physical Education and Athletics, was asked for his opinion. He said he felt that the rule was neither fair or enforceable. He felt the rule should be abolished. It was the consensus of the School Com- mittee to agree with his assessment. It was VOTED: to support the resolution of the Littleton School Committee and direct Mrs. Patricia A. Swanson, Lexington School Committee delegate to so vote at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees to be held October 27-28, 1977. (Brown, Gaudet, Unanimous) Mrs. Swanson began the dialogue by stating that the proposed policy STUDENT RIGHTS on Student Rights and Responsibilities, developed by the committee, was & RESPONSIBILI- a very good job but she had concern about points that were omitted. She TIES(3RD RDC.) felt that there needed to be more emphasis on responsibilities. She sug- gested that a different format might be used that would include a list- ing of responsibilities. She referred to an example of another model used in a school system. She suggested the Students Rights and Respon- sibilities committee consider alternate ways of expressing the proposed policy. Dr. Lawson referred to the memo from Mr. Tapply of October 18, which he felt had attempted to add additional substance to the proposed document. He noted that Mr. Tapply had incorporated responsibilities in several paragraphs. Mr. Michelman said he felt that the document was mostly clear with few exceptions. He said most of the student responsi- bilities were included and the limits for the section on Rights of Free- dom of Expression would be covered with the additional statements in the memo of October 18. He noted that there was a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. Mrs. Gaudet said she felt the document was not explicit enough and needed more focus on responsibilities. She felt that another format might clarify the situation. She said students would not pull out the responsibilities, therefore, the document needed to have them stated ex- plicitly. Mr. Tapply said the draft had been reviewed by students and teachers. The feedback he had received indicated students did not need additional statements and rules. He felt what students did need was a statement of rights. Mrs. Swanson added that she did not want her re- marks interpreted that she wished a list of "do' s and don' ts", but felt Page 172 October 24, 1977 it was critical that when one knew his rights he may not be aware of all the responsibilities that went with those rights. She said a new format would solve the issue. Dr. Lawson c.mmented that he was not sure that everyone did know their rights due to the many changes in the law, especially in the area of student laws. He felt that the document would provide students with a knowledge of their rights. Mr. Brown said originally he thought the document should be more specific, but after review and discussion felt the original document did contain a proper balance of rights and respon- sibilities even though more subtle than what he originally thought was best. Mr. Hoffman said it was impossible to write a statement of re- sponsibilities due to the varying ages of the students who receive and are influenced by the document. He said that some of the responsibili- ties were beyond students' comprehension in some cases. He felt that the document as drafted, was basically a rights document rather than a rights and responsibilities document. Mr. Michelman then added that a prudent, well managed school sys- tem should have a statement of rights that was governed by laws with elaboration of these rights in a school setting. The document, he said, needed a clear statement about the grounds for severe discipline, and should contain provisions for additions to the document as experience dictated. He felt that the document accomplished these things. Mrs. Swanson suggested that the document be referred to as a rights document rather than a student rights and responsibilities document. It was the consensus of the committee that this be the case. It was moved that the draft statement for the proposed policy on student rights and responsibilities of the Lexington Public Schools be approved with the amendments to the draft as follows: 1. that the word responsibilities be eliminated from the title. 2. changes discussed and agreed upon on October 11, 1977 be imple- mented. 3. both changes in the memo of 10/18/77 from Mr. Tapply be included. 4. the appeals procedure on page 8 be revised to conform with the proceudre voted in the Equal Opportunity Policy. 5. the last paragraph on page 8 read, "Principals may authorize for- mation of committees or boards to review school programs and/or regulations or alternative channels. 6. the superintendent be authorized to obtain from all principals, rules of conduct, and rules and responsibilities of students in buildings under his jurisdiction. (Michelman, Brown, Unan.) Dr. Pierson reviewed the brochure entitled Opportunities for Pro- OPPORTUNITIES fessional Development, developed by the Professional Development Com- FOR PROFESSIC mittee. He said the focus of the program was to consolidate opportun- DEVELOPMENT ities for staff, to be consistent with system goals, to provide super- visory teachers with a plan for the entire year, and to be responsive to the needs and interests of the schools and teachers. The School Committee complimented the Professional Development Committee for its Page 173 October 24, 1977 Mr. Spiris noted that it might be possible for the Computer Ser- STAFF PROFILE vices Division to develop a professional staff profile for the system. He requested that the School Committee members send to him specific items they would like to be considered for inclusion in the staff pro- file. Mr. Spiris said he would present a sample profile form to the committee for their reactions. Mr. Spiris presented a report on class sizes in the elementary CLASS SIZES grades as of October 6, 1977. He noted that the averages for the ele- mentary grades were: Kindergarten - 17.1 Grades 1-6 - 22.8 K-6 22.1 In summary he said that there were 148 elementary classes distributed over 10 schools; 17 grade level K; and 131 grade level 1-6. He then pre- sented a similar report of the secondary schools, noting in each school the number of classes, number of students, courses and departments. He said the school system was beginning to be able to consolidate class size into a more desirable range. He added that there were less extremes this year. When asked why this was, by Mr. Hoffman, he responded by say- ing that there was more flexibility due to the consolidation of schools at the elementary level and refined secondary scheduling. He concluded by noting the average class size of secondary schools as follows: Lexington High School - 22.2 Diamond Jr. High School - 20.8 Clarke Jr. High School- 24.9 Muzzey Jr. High School - 22.6 A letter from the president of the PTA Council, Nancy Bender, was PTA COUNCIL reviewed by Dr. Lawson. He said that this letter was in response to LETTER REGARDING his request of a year ago that a detailed rationale for collections of UNICEF UNICEF funds by school children be presented to the School Committee. He said the letter fulfilled the agreement. He added that he would send a memo to staff specifying his support and that the program would be handled in the same way as it had been in prior years with no in- volvement of staff. The PTA would coordinate it in each school. The document Evaluation of Administrators was presented to the EVALUATION OF School Committee by the Superintendent. The Superintendent noted that ADMINISTRATORS this process was instituted by administrative staff and had been de- veloped over the past several months. He said it was reviewed and dis- cussed at the June management series, and had received full support of the administrative staff. He also noted that due to the many objectives for this year, it would not be possible to fully implement the system but would phase into it. It was VOTED: to adopt the Administrative Evaluation Instrument with the under- standing that the administration will phase into it with refine- ments taking place in the process. (Brown, Hoffman, Unanimous) Dr. Lawson noted that administrators role descriptions had been up- ROLE dated by Dr. Pierson and Mr. Barnes. The document was presented to the DESCRIPTIONS School Committee. The superintendent noted that many of these roles had not been updated for many years and some were non-existent. Mr. Hoffman said that he had a question or two regarding some roles. It was agreed to discuss the roles at future meetings. fi Page 174 October 24, 1977 A memorandum from Dr. Monderer regarding a special needs survey was SPECIAL NEED: discussed. Dr. Lawson noted that in the spring of 1977 a committee was SURVEY formed of special needs teachers and representatives from the Friends of Special Education. The committee developed a questionnaire designed to survey the experiences and attitudes of parents whose children were re- ceiving services in the Lexington Public Schools under Chapter 766. The survey, largely positive, did note some areas that needed attention. Mr. Michelman asked what plans were for a follow-through on this. Dr. Lawson said that he had been in discussion with Dr. Monderer, and that a follow through would be implemented, especially in the category proto- type 502.4. He said the follow up would either be a written survey or a telephone survey. Also non-respondents would also be contacted to acquire additional information regarding services and attitudes. It was MINUTES OF OCT. 11, 197; VOTED: to accept the minutes of October 11, 1977, as corrected. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS Personal Services October 14, 1977 Classified Payroll #9 $ 74,448.80 October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll #BP 429,997.10 Expenses October 14, 1977 Bill Schedules #41 6,718.56 October 14, 1977 #42 5,614.26 October 14, 1977 #43 9,909.73 October 14, 1977 #44 4,993.63 October 14, 1977 #45 5,200.00 October 21, 1977 #46 4,521.57 October 21, 1977 #47 39,171.71 October 21, 1977 #48 363.32 October 21, 1977 #49 9,612.70 Expenses (Carryover) October 14, 1977 Bill Schedules #206 142.01 October 21, 1977 #207 136.60 Vocational Education October 14, 1977 Transportation #1V 355.76 October 21, 1977 #2V 149.91 Athletics October 21, 1977 Bill Schedule #9 964.52 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington Funds) Adult Education October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,283.94 October 21, 1977 Bill Schedule #2 249.04 Driver Education October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 523.15 Page 175 October 24, 1977 METCO Program October 14, 1977 Classified Payroll #3 $ 1,310.72 October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 3,061.89 October 21, 1977 Bill Schedule #2 103.75 LEADS Program October 14, 1977 Classified Payroll 1,132.94 October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 856.19 October 21, 1977 Bill Schedule #25 4,150.48 PL 94-142 Grant October 14, 1977 Classified Payroll 450.56 October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 603.84 October 14, 1977 Bill Schedule #2 20.00 PL 89-313 Special Education October 7, 1977 Professional Payroll 680.69 Pupil School Material Recovery October 21, 1977 Bill Schedule #2 165.31 It was FIVE YEAR CALENDAR VOTED: to accept the proposed five year calendar. (Hoffman, Brown, (2nd RDG.) Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL (PROFESSIONAL) VOTED: to accept the following new personnel (Professional) (Brown, Hoffman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (Professional) . (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Maternity Leave Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS VOTED: that orders for audio-visual equipment be awarded to the follow- ing companies and totals, based on their low bids meeting speci- fications. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Company Item Totals Grant Burtnett Associates Steno Lab Equipment $ 946.20 Lang. Lab Equipment 3,027.40 $3,973.60 H.B. Educational Systems,Inc. 1 Tape recorder w/slide sound sync. 274.40 2 Microphones 106.00 2 Microphones 23.70 $ 404.10 Page 176 October 24, 1977 Company Item Totals New England Photo, Inc. 23 Cassette Tape Recorders $1,027.85 1 Camera 23.00 $1,060.85 Unicorn 1 Rear Screen Sync. Sound Projector 365.75 $5,804.30 A memorandum from the Town Counsel's designee, Jeff Jones, noted STUDENT RECORDS suggestions to Dr. Monderer regarding the legalities of student records. The memorandum was presented to the school committee by the superintend- ent. In Dr. Monderer's absence, Mr. Barnes said two recommendations made by legal counsel were that the language be localized throughout the document to state Lexington Public Schools, where applicable, and that Sections 10.2, 12.1 and 12.12 be omitted since they did not apply to the Lexington Schools. It was VOTED: to accept the student records document. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) (See attached) The final draft on school closing was presented to the school com- FINAL DRAFT OF mittee. Typographical errors were corrected. Dr. Lawson said that the SCHOOL CLOSING policy would now be coded and placed in the Policy Book and dissemina- ted to staff and appropriate citizens. It was EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTED: to go into Executive Session at 10:33 p.m. to discuss negotiations. The Chairman announced that the school committee would not be coming out of. Executive Session that evening. (Hoffman, yes; Gaudet, yes; Swanson, yes; Michelman, yes; Brown, yes) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary