Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-28-SC-min Page 188 November 28, 1977 The Lexington School Committee met at the School Administration Building, Monday, November 28, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Michelman, Brown, Hoffman, Gaudet and student representa- tive Miller. Also present were: Lawson, Spiris, Barnes, Pierson, Mac- Innes and Monderer. Mrs. Edith Sandy, 353 Emerson Road asked the school committee to PUBLIC consider disseminating more agenda materials at meetings when major PARTICIPATION items such as budget or policy decisions were discussed. She said the materials could be marked "working papers", "tentative only" and col- lected at the end of the meeting, if the school committee so wished. She said it would permit the school committee to communicate more ef- fectively with citizens who attended. Mr. Hoffman expressed his empathy with the problem. He said that over the last school year the school committee had made attempts to com- municate more effectively and perhaps this suggestion would provide ad- ditional communication. Mr. Michelman suggested that those who attended might share copies of material. Mr. Brown suggested that first reading of policies, would be appropriate since it was understood that such ma- terials were only working papers. Dr. Lawson said he had no objection and would try to respond to this request. Mr. Barnes presented the school committee with the 1977 Title IX- CHAPTER 622 Chapter 622 Self Evaluation. He reviewed the conclusions based upon TITLE IX the comments received from principals and department heads in the fol- ANNUAL REPORT lowing areas: Admissions to School, Courses of Study, Guidance, Curricu- lum, Extra Curricula Activities, Scholarship and Monetary Awards, Facil- ities and Employment Practices. He reviewed the highlights of several areas, as well as several department reports. He further coumeented on the in-service program conducted for the staff and administrators during May and June. He noted that the written evaluations from staff indi- cated the need to have future in-service programs in small groups at individual schools rather than the total school system or large group meetings. He presented the school committee with sample press releases, the annual notification of school committee policy, and a new standard- ized 622 grievance form. Following the report the school committee com- mented on sections of the report as well as asked for clarification on some segments. In summary, Dr. Lawson noted that on several occasions members of the State Department, Office of Chapter 622/Title IX, had re- ferred to Lexington as a community that had accomplished a great deal in the area of Chapter 622 and Title IX, and felt Lexington was a model program. The school committee expressed its thanks to Mr. Barnes for the report. Mr. Lombard gave a brief oral review of the Summer Reading Program SUMMER READING of 1977 and presented a formal written report to the school committee. Dr. Lawson noted that feedback from parents had been most positive re- garding the Summer Reading Program. The school committee expressed its thanks to Mr. Lombard and Miss Dillmore for their efforts and coordina- tion of the program. Page 189 November 28, 1977 Dr. Monderer presented a report on the follow-up of ths Senior FOLLOW-UP Class of 1977 noting that 63% of the graduating class went on to 4- SENIORS 197 ; year colleges and 74% went on to further education. Dr. Lawson explained that no agreement in the Legislature on what, HEARING ON S if any, state finance reform would occur in the Legislature, in the fi- FINANCED RI??? nancing of public education in the Commonwealth. He said he felt it was essential for the school committee to keep abreast of the issue and express opinions to those who vote on financial reform in education. He noted that Lexington would not benefit from any of the several bills that have been proposed. He said he felt that it was the consensus of the school committee and administration that support should be given only those bills that would not result in a loss in state aid to Lexington. Mrs. Swanson and Mrs. Gaudet reported that at the Massachusetts Association of School Committees Annual Meeting delegates seemed to be uninformed on the issue. They noted that in most other states it had not worked out very well, but advised to keep informed. They reported that the reforms as proposed were not the answer to the problems of com- munities and in the long run added the burden of additional taxes to many towns and cities. Mr. Michelman said he agreed it was a very im- portant matter for any school committee and suggested the committee keep informed. He added that we had not analyzed any concrete propo- sals, so it was impossible to interpret the magnitude and impact on Lexington. Mrs. Swanson suggested that Dr. Lawson circulate materials on the issue to the school cowmittee. Dr. Lawson responded saying that some items were already in circulation but would continue to keep the school committee informed. Dr. Monderer said that he had forwarded information to Dr. Lawson SPECIAL ED and to the school committee which was a questionnaire regarding two PROPOSALS - special education proposals. Dr. Monderer noted that special educators MINUTEMAN V0( in the feeder schools felt there were unmet needs that hopefully could TECH SCHOOL be responded to by Minuteman Vocational Technical School. He said that the proposal would ask the Minuteman School to serve low incidence popu- lations. He noted that other similar regional technical schools were providing similar programs. Dr. Monderer added that several Lexington students were being sent to private vocational settings such as Buttaro Sowle, etc. He and other special educators felt Minuteman Regional School could provide a setting for such programs. Mr. Hoffman asked if Lexington would be better off financially on a per capita basis. Dr. Monderer re- sponded saying that there was no guarantee that the cost would be less with either option. He stated that the issues really focused on two is- sues, financial and/or philosophical. The financial aspects meant there would be no guarantee of reduced costs. The philosophical issue was that the regional school should provide programs. Mr. Michelman said that he agreed with Mr. Hoffman' s comments and felt that he would also propose Lexington pay based on actual enrollment in the program. Mr. Hoffman added that by paying on an individual basis it would make Minuteman School more accountable for the program and also provide Lexington with the opportunity to evaluate program participation. It was the consensus of the committee to respond to the questionnaire and indicated they would like Minuteman School to provide the program and pay on a pupil enroll- ment basis. Page 190 November 28, 1977 Mr. Michelman stated that he had a few questions regarding staffing STAFFING ratios in the budget building process. He noted that 26 students per GUIDELINES class were being used as a planning figure but suggested a lower figure be set for the earlier grades (K-2) . He proposed 22 to 23 students be set as a planning figure. He noted that in prior discussions he felt there was some consensus on changing the figure. He asked the superin- tendent to comment from an educational viewpoint. Dr. Lawson responded that teachers would feel strongly that small class sizes would be more beneficial in the early years. He noted that the administration had used the 26 as a planning figure due to the guidelines set by the school committee but would provide information to the school committee if the figure was readjusted for grades K and 2. Mrs. Swanson suggested that rather than vote to change the figure, the school committee should wait until it received the figures from Mr. Spiris and Dr. Lawson. She also expressed concern that when reviewing ratios of adults to students, a real picture of the number of adults in each classroom be presented. She noted that in a recent tour of the schools by the school commit- tee the number of adults in the classrooms were multiple in many cases. Mr. Brown said the school committee had expressed interest in chang- ing the class size placing figures at the lower level even though there was no formal vote. He said he had expressed interest in this recom- mendation. It was agreed that Mr. Spiris would provide illustrated ex- amples to the school committee based upon a planning figure of 23 for grades 1 and 2 and 26 for grades 3-6. Mr. Michelman said one additional problem with the guidelines was the notation that no course under 15 shall be scheduled except in ex- treme situations. He noted that in another section of the guidelines the superintendent' s permission was needed to schedule a course with less than 15 students enrolled. He felt that the terminology, "in ex- treme situations", needed clarification. Dr. Lawson proposed that if clarification was the focus he would suggest that not only the superin- tendent have the right to approve the request to schedule a course for 15 students or less, but no class would be cancelled without his ap- proval. It was agreed that this segment of the guidelines be refined with a mini-report being submitted regarding the criteria. Mr. Richard Rossi represented grievee, said LEA GRIEVANCE the main issue of the grievance was the unilateral action taken by the 77-78-1 School Committee in regard to working conditions of a science teacher. He said the LEA had not been involved in the drastic changes in working conditions. He noted that for ten to twelve years a science teacher's workload had been about sixty-five students, and any change in the un- written agreement should take place at the negotiations table. He noted that over the course of the years, past practice dictated this position. Mr. Richards represented the high school administration, and reviewed the process he undertook regarding the issue of the grievance. He noted that in processing the science teachers' schedules last spring he tried to distribute fairly the load per science teacher based upon the best student projections available. He noted that as late as July 12, the number of students per teacher and the number of classes were reviewed, and all classes and students could be accommodated except one class. He said an immediate decision had to be made to schedule the class. Therefore, A Page 191 November 28, 1977 he made the decision to schedule the class with based upon his experience and qualifications. Likewise, the teacher was relieved of all other responsibilities. Mr. Michelman then asked Mr. Richards to be more specific regarding the relief of responsibilities for the teacher. Mr. Richards noted that had been relieved of all lunch duties, study hall duties, committee work, outside supervision, etc. The teacher's only responsibility was to teach four classes of science. Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Richards if the teacher had been consulted prior to the assignment. Mr. Richards said that he had no prior consultation with as was on vacation all summer and unavail- able. Mr. Michelman asked if the projected enrollment loss of 65 stu- dents at the high school meant the loss of a full science teacher. Mr. Richards said that it meant a loss of a half teacher in the science de- partment. Mr. Michelman said that at the elementary level, when such a problem had recently occurred, an additional teacher was hired, as re- quested, and asked if anyone had requested part time or full time help to deal with the problem. Dr. Clune said he did not make any request. Dr. Lawson said that additional staff would have been an alternative but he was not informed about it until the fall session began. He said other alternatives could have been considered. He added it was easier at the elementary level to add staff since the staff was not committed to a schedule as was the secondary teachers. He noted that the schedule was made at the school level and not at the Central Office level. He emphasized that assistance was not asked for by Dr. Clune or Mr. Richards. Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Richards how this problem would be dealt with in the spring of '78. Mr. Richards said that once the sessions were set up the teacher would carry the schedule throughout the school year. Mr. Hoffman said he noted the few number of exceptions in the science department over the years, and suggested that the control mechanism to maintain the ratio so close, was class size, and wondered what major change occurred to make the difference this year. Dr. Clune responded saying the guidelines that were used were that each teacher should be scheduled 75-90 students in science, and the planning figure was tighter this year. Mrs. Swanson asked how many periods were scheduled for the work week, and how many periods a week the teacher actually taught. Mr. Spiris responded that there were 32 periods/wk at the high school and taught 18 contact hours including laboratories. Mr. Rossi said the problem was the increase of nearly one-third preparation time, and was another reason for the grievance. He felt it was an injustice to the teacher and to the students. He said even though there were 18 contact hours there was a need for class preparation time and laboratory time. Mrs. Swanson then asked what specific article of the contract was being violated? Mr. Rossi said the concept of past practice was vio- lated. He noted that not everything pertaining to public employees was in contracts and after three years of acceptance of an item pertaining to it, it became past practice and was enforceable. Mr. Michelman asked if that principle applied when provisions dealing with parts of the sub- ject matter were addressed by class size in the contract. Mr. Rossi said that there was no problem with management's right to schedule and determine classes, but felt the LEA had not been involved in the unilat- eral action of changing the working conditions of an employee during the life of the negotiated contract. Mr. Hoffman said that he was bothered Page 192 November 28, 1977 by what happened to the teacher but felt there was no violation of the contract. Mrs. Swanson said that it was the responsibility of the School Committee to vote solely on ciolation of the contract and not on personal issues of the value of the grievance. Mr. Rossi summarized by saying the LEA felt there was a violation of contract due to the increase in workload which was a unilateral action during the life of a two year con- tract. He felt that this transcended any contract language. He suggested the School Committee gather additional information from its counsel be- fore voting on the grievance. Dr. Lawson said that he had rejected the grievance at his level prior to submission to the School Committee level due to the advice of counsel; that there was no violation of contract. He emphasized that it was not a personal matter for he had high regard for the grievee who was known to be an excellent teacher. He felt that several exceptions had been made in the past and felt that when the problem arose regarding staffing lev- els, the needs of students were of prime concern. He said since this was an exception he had hoped it would have been accepted as an exception for the year. The School Committee agreed to delay a vote on the matter and to discuss the matter with its counsel, It was VOTED: to go into Executive Session to discuss a matter concerning liti- gation strategy at 11:06 p.m. It was announced that the School Committee would not be coming out of Executive Session. (Hoffman, yes; Gaudet, yes; Brown, yes; Michelman; yes; Swanson, yes) Respectfully submi ed, geg-4-04-' lt/chard Hdrnes ng e /k Recordicretary