Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-22-SC-min Page 182 November 22, 1977 The Lexington School Committee met at Diamond Junior High School, Tuesday, November 22, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Brown, Michelman, Hoffman, Gaudet. Also present were: Lawson, Barnes, Pierson, Monderer, Maclnnes and Student Representative Miller. Mr. William Casey, Head of Maintenance in the Lexington Public RECOGNITION Schools, was presented a Paul Revere Bowl by the school committee in ap- AWARD preciation for his many years of service to the Lexington Public Schools. Mr. Charles Code, 15 Flintlock Road, expressed his concern about PUBLIC the school closing issue. He said one expression continually used did PARTICIPATION not apply to all students. That expression was, "It happened to my child, and everything is fine." He felt that school closing was not fine for everyone. He said that there was no reason to assume a desire on the part of all people to close schools. Mrs. Deborah Kearney, 44 Harding Road, wanted to know when the town would receive a written explanation of the savings to the town and schools from the actual closing of Hancock School. Mrs. Swanson said that the actual school cost savings had been deducted from the budget last year. She noted that the savings were more than anticipated due to additional equipment savings not included in the original estimate. Dr. Lawson said the estimated savings of $125,000 were increased to approximately $140,000 due to the reduction of purchases of equipment for other schools due to transfers from the Hancock inventory. Mrs. Swanson added that when the Hancock School building was sold the town would receive addi- tional income as well as income from the taxable property. Mrs. Gerry Foley, 28 Wyman Road said she questioned the simulations in the School Closing Analysis of January, 1977. She noted that she failed to understand why information went back ten years, but projected for only two years. Dr. Lawson responded that the enrollment projection process would be reviewed during the school closing presentation later in the evening. Mr. James Cawley, L.E.A. spokesman, reviewed the history of the LEA GRIEVANCE Special Class Stipend Grievance. He said that the grievance concerned SPECIAL CLASS itself with the action of the stipend being retracted from people cov- STIPEND ered by the two year LEA/SC contract. He said that he had agreed to a definition for the 1977-78 school year with the understanding that appro- priate staff would be "grandfathered" until the present contract expired. He added that his focus was to protect the two year contract and could not recommend taking away the stipend for staff covered by the 1976-78 contract. He noted that he accepted the definition of Prototype 502.4 for future stopends. Dr. Monderer responded with the administration' s position which was the definition of Prototype 502.4 had been agreed to by the L.E.A. and the school committee. He said it was not appropri- ate to apply this definition to staff who were in categories contrary to the definition. He added that there could only be continuation of the stipend for those who performed the duties. Mrs. Gaudet inquired as to how the stipend was awarded in other areas, such as athletics, if the person stopped performance in the job. Dr. Lawson responded that persons received the stipend when the work was performed. Page 183 November 22, 1977 Mr. Michelman noted that the special class stipend had been part LEA GRIEVANCE of the agreement for years but due to the change in staffing patterns, SPECIAL CLASS buildup of staff and the mandatory implementation of the Chapter 766, STIPEND problems were bound to arise. Dr. Monderer added that the state man- (CONTINUED) date required that all labels were to be eliminated. Therefore, a new definition was needed based on the prototypes. Mrs. Swanson asked Mr. Cawley if he agreed that one should not be paid for not performing work. She added that the school committee felt it would like to award stipends to those who did the work but could not due to the present L.E.A. grievance situation. Mr. Cawley replied that the school committee made an agreement with the understanding that the contract was for two years. He added that he did not have an agreement concerning the grandfathered clause in writing, but felt that Dr. Law- son and Mr. Spiris had agreed to the new definition with such a provision. Dr. Lawson responded that no agreement had been reached on a grandfather clause and he would not agree to such an idea since he felt it was im- proper to pay people for work which was not performed. Mr. Hoffman noted that as a matter of protocol the Lexington Education Association did not make agreements with administrators but directly with the school commit- tee. He said even if Mr. Spiris and Dr. Lawson had agreed to it they would have to recommend it to the school committee for approval since the L.E.A. and the school committee were the negotiating agencies. Dr. Lawson reiterated that he was very concerned that some people who de- served to be paid the stipend weren' t being paid due to the lack of agreement with the L.E.A. Mrs. Swanson said the school com...Sttee shared the concern of Dr. Lawson. At this point a vote was called. It was MOVED: to deny the grievance. (Brown, Gaudet, Unanimous) Mrs. Swanson asked the superintendent of schools to present his SCHOOL CLOS1t report of the Analysis of School Closing. Dr. Lawson noted that in 1969 Lexington Schools had reached its peak year in enrollment which was 9609. He said presently the enrollment was 7180 or a 25% decline since 1969. He reviewed the enrollment of kindergarten entrance clas- ses for the past several years which dropped significantly from 1967 (652 students) to a present enrollment in kindergarten of 282 students. He noted that it was projected that the kindergarten class in 1982 would be approximately 240 students. Dr. Lawson then reviewed the develop- ment of the present school closing policy. The Director of Planning and Research, Dick Barnes, and the Coordinator of Planning, Frank Di- Giammarino provided written documentation for the report. Frank Di- Giammarino reviewed the procedures and several of the charts contained in the report. Following the presentation Mr. Barnes reviewed the esti- mate of student assignments contained on pages 18, 18A in the report which listed the approximate class sizes at Bridge and Estabrook if Parker students were re-assigned to those buildings. He also noted the chart on page 18A which concerned itself with the comparisons of the three schools if they remained opened and if Parker School was closed. in 1978-79. Topics commented upon were building capacities, building enrollments, class size ranges, percent of building utilization, and the estimated savings. He then reviewed the estimated staff assign- ments for 1978-79 with Parker open and with Parker closed and noted p Page 184 November 22, 1977 the savings in staff as follows: Kindergarten teachers (1) ; Grades 1-6 (2) ; and specialists (3.18) . Mr. Maclnnes reviewed the estimated financial savings as listed on Page 17 of the report, which estimated a savings of $145,260, based upon the 1977-78 salary guide which did not include the 1978-79 increases due to negotiations. It was also noted that this savings figure did not in- clude salaries of aides, part-time secretarial help, consumable supplies, reductions in equipment costs, or repair to physical plant. Frank DiGiammarino then commented on population trends in Lexington as communicated to him by Mr. Kenneth Briggs, town planner. His conclu- sion stated that the available data appeared to validate prior conclu- sions that Lexington school age population would not increase sufficiently to require additional spaces beyond the projected load of approximately 5300 pupils in 1982. At this point, Dr. Lawson summarized the report and made the fol- lowing recommendations: He said that based upon an analysis of five year enrollment projections (as of November 1, 1977) , and a review of all other data relating to the need for classrooms and schools in Sep- tember of 1978, it was recommended that Parker School be closed effec- tive September 1, 1978, and that Parker students be reassigned to Bridge and Estabrook Schools. Members of the School Committee were asked to comment. Mr. Michel- man said Page 19 (Section 14) of the report contained statements that are solely the town planner's viewpoint. He noted the comments did not reflect school committee policy. He added that his statement was neith- er an endorsement nor rejection of the Town planners statements. Mr. Hoffman stated that he was anxious to see a mock-up of the Estabrook School room utilization for 1978-79 since he had concerns regarding the projected 967. utilization of capacity next year. At this point several members of the audience indicated their con- cerns with the school closing issue. Some of the questions asked were: 1. Would it be possible to have the entire Parker School re-assigPied to Estabrook as a unit if Parker School were left open for one more year. 2. Would it be possible to have Parker School students assigned as a unit next year? 3. Would it be possible to project class sizes at Estabrook for the next two or three years if Parker School were reassigned as a unit to Estabrook School? The school committee requested the superintendent present figures on class sizes, staff assignment and % of classroom utilization for the proposals presented in items #1, 2 and 3. 4. Why was not the Lexington Town census data used in the projections? Mr. Barnes responded that the town census data was used in determin- ing projections. 5. Why are the projections only for five years when the government is able to translate projections to 1988? Page 185 November 22, 1977 Dr. DiGiammarino responded that Lexington had projections through 1988, also. Lexington projections included students born in January each year, thus figures after 5 years did not reflect unborn children. The school committee announced the distribution of the School Clos- ing Analysis reports as follows: 50 copies would be available at Parker, Estabrook and Bridge Schools on Monday morning, November 28. Other cop- ies would be sent to Cary Library, town committees and town officials. After the question and answer period it was announced that the School Committee would hold a public hearing on the School Closing Analysis on Tuesday evening, December 6, at the Diamond Junior High School at 8:00 p.m. It was MINUTES OF 10/24/77 VOTED: to accept the minutes of October 24, 1977, as corrected. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) VOTED: to accept the minutes of October 25, 1977, as presented. MINUTES OF (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) 10/25/77 VOTED: to accept the minutes of November 1, 1977, as corrected. MINUTES OF (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) 11/1/77 VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of October 24, 1977, EXECUTIVE as presented. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) SESSION MINUTES 10/24 VOTED: to accept the Executive Session Minutes of November 1, 1977, as EXECUTIVE presented. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) SESSION MINUTES 11/1/ 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 November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll #10-P $433,494.42 October 28, 1977 Classified Payrolls 73,098.81 November 11, 1977 74,358.91 Expenses November 4, 1977 Bill Schedules #54 6,157.37 November 4, 1977 #55 12,148.43 November 4, 1977 #56 6,921.88 November 4, 1977 #57 5,282.77 November 4, 1977 #58 8,384.62 November 4, 1977 #59 1,457.38 November 4, 1977 #60 16,632.14 November 10, 1977 #61 4,804.87 November 10, 1977 #62 5,909.12 Page 186 November 22, 1977 November 10, 1977 #63 4,437.65 November 10, 1977 #64 4,611.58 November 10, 1977 #65 4,385.51 November 10, 1977 #66 10.62 November 10, 1977 #67 966.79 November 10, 1977 #68 23,541.63 November 18, 1977 #69 19,712.75 Out-of-State Travel November 4, 1977 Bill Schedules #4 177.61 November 10, 1977 #5 500.00 Athletics November 4, 1977 Bill Schedules #11 565.12 November 18, 1977 #12 273.53 November 4, 1977 Payroll #4 911.00 Vocational Education November 4, 1977 Tuition #3 3,500.00 November 10, 1977 Transportation #4 254.94 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington Funds) Adult Education November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,141.94 November 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #3 180.43 Driver Education November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 384.10 METCO November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 3,278.14 October 28, 1977 Classified Payrolls #4 1,382.62 November 11, 1977 Classified Payrolls #5 1,441.00 November 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #3 24,898.88 LEADS Program November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 856.19 October 28, 1977 Classfied Payrolls 1,375.10 November 11, 1977 1,395.35 November 4, 1977 Bill Schedule #26 5,094.81 PL 94-142 Grant (Transition to Employment) November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 603.84 October 28, 1977 Classified Payrolls 450.60 November 11, 1977 450.60 PL 89-313 (Special Education) November 4, 1977 Professional Payroll 548.69 ESEA Library November 10, 1977 Bill Schedule #3 109.50 ACE Grant November 4, 1977 Bill Schedule 42.15 Low Income (Summer Reading Program) November 10, 1977 Bill Schedule #3 26.62 A Page 187 November 22, 1977 The Financial Statement was presented and discussed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL (PROFESSIONAJ VOTED: to accept the following New Personnel (Professional) (BrOwn, Michelman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following professional personnel changes. (Brown, (PROFESSIONPJ Michelman, Unanimous) Correction in Salary Resignations Change in Assignment Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following classified personnel changes . (Gaudet, (CLASSIFIED) Brown, Unanimous) See next page Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was COACHING RECOMMENDATI( VOTED: to accept the following additional coaching recommendations for 1977-78 1977-78. (Brown, Michelman) See next page At a prior school committee meeting a member of the School Committee TAXI CAB requested an explanation of taxi cab geometry. Geoff Pierson presented GEOMETRY a written explanation to the committee regarding this topic. It was EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTED: to go into Executive Session at 10:55 p.m. for the purpose of discussion of an exception to use of Psychotherapy Service Pro- viders, involving the health of an individual. It was announced that the school committee would not return to open public session. (Michelman, yes; Brown, yes; Gaudet, yes; Hoffman, yes; Swanson, yes) Respectfully submitr,.gd, 'Richard . Barnes /k - Recording ecretary