Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-13-SC-min Page 193 December 13, 1977 The Lexington School Committee met at the Estabrook School, Tuesday, December 13, 1977, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Brown, Michelman, Hoffman and student representative Miller. Also present were: Lawson, Spiris, Maclnnes, Pierson, Monderer, Barnes. The entire meeting was devoted to the School Closing Analysis. Dr. SCHOOL CLOSING Lawson introduced the report. In his introductory remarks, the superin- ANALYSIS tendent noted the continuing decline in enrollments present in Lexington as well as the phenomenon that was occurring nationwide. He also noted that the recent report of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stated that every city and town in Massachusetts is presently or will confront the issue of declining school populations. He summarized by saying that the presentation of the school analysis would provide a couuuon base of in- formation, a chance for review of the report and an opportunity to aug- ment the basis of information. He noted that several administrators were in attendance to respond to questions following the report. Mr. Barnes began the presentation by commenting on the history of enrollments in the Lexington Public Schools. He reviewed projected en- rollments through 1988 and building enrollments through 1981. He then reviewed the development and constraints of the School Closing Policy. In summary, he noted the enrollments at the individual schools versus capacities for 1968 through 1977, as well as the peak year enrollments in each building. The next part of the presentation was given by Frank DiGiammarino, Coordinator of Planning. He commented on the district lines that were utilized in the report, building capacities and current classroom utili- zation, Option 1 (keeping all schools open) . Option 2 (Parker closed with students reassigned to Estabrook and Bridge) and a parent request that all Parker students be assigned to Estabrook as a unit. Following Frank DiGiammarino's presentation, Dr. Goodridge, Principal of Bridge School and William Terris, Principal of Estabrook School, reviewed plans for the utilization of their buildings next year. Both commented that they could accommodate the number of students projected for assignment in the buildings. Mr. Spiris presented illustrative student and staff assign- ments with Parker open and Parker closed, as well as, the projected fi- nancial savings for staff. Mr. Maclnnes then reviewed the cost savings of the entire report commenting on staff as well as the expense accounts with a total estimated savings of approximately $140,000. He noted that not included in this estimated amount were increases in salaries for the 1978-79 school year, as well as, salaries of aides, part-time clerical help, reduction in equipment costs, repair to physical plant, etc. Fol- lowing the presentation, Mr. Charles Code, Flintlock Road presented al- ternative data on enrollments and projections. He challenged the use of Cohort Survival method used by the school department. He said the straight line projection method indicated a leveling off of student de- cline. He felt his alternative was the best method to project future enrollment. He said it would be wise to consider delaying the closing of Parker for one year based upon his information. Mr. Robert Wells, Grove Street, challenged Mr. Code's interpretation that the straight line statistical projection technique was more accurate, feeling that what had gone on in the past would not necessarily be a reliable predic- tion for the future. Mr. Michael Alexander, Williams Rd. , referred to Page 194 December 13, 1977 the Committee for the Reassignment of Pupils Report. He said that he was concerned with the "prudent margin" criterion as noted on Page 6, where it said--closing sequences should follow criterion 8 and the clos- ing schedule should be designed with adequate margin to permit assign- ment options with regard to METCO, housing developments and errors, projection date, etc. , and that the closing of the school would not be accomplished unless the schools to which the affected students are re- assigned at 907 capacity level or less. He said that the Estabrook capacity did not satisfy the committee's criteria. Mrs. Sandy, North Emerson Road submitted an analysis that suggested that closing Parker. School would be a year too early. In her presentation, she expressed concern for the capacity of Estabrook School and projected enrollment for Estabrook versus the allowable error of enrollment projections over the past 5 years. She concluded by saying that the total error in pro- jection for all schools was small (many times under 1%) but felt that there was enough frequency of larger errors in individual schools in any one year to warrant a delay in closing Parker. She said that she was cognizant of the fact that there was a decline in enrollment and was not necessarily advocating Parker School not to close but felt that a closing was premature. Mr. Michelman responded to Mr. Michael Alexander regarding his com- ment on percent untilization. Mr. Michelman noted that the Committee for the Reassignment of Pupils referred to a need to accommodate the METCO enrollment in suggesting a 90% figure and not the general school population. Mr. Michelman then said the METCO students were taken into account in the 421 projection of the Estabrook School as reported by Frank DiGiammarino. Dr. DiGiammarino responded by saying that METCO students from Parker were reassigned to Bridge School upon agreement with the METCO Coordinator. At the time of reassignment not all host families were available. He noted that Mr. Barnes had discussed the reassignment with Mr. Modest who had assigned all of the METCO Parker students to Bridge wanting them to go there as a unit even though host families were not assigned. Dr. Lawson assured everyone that whenever possible, METCO host fam- ilies and students would be assigned to the same school. Mr. Harrison Jones, Valley Road, said that he had a conviction that the school committee was addressing itself to closing the wrong schools. He felt that a disruption of as few pupils as possible could take place by closing junior high schools and keeping the elementary schools open. as schools (K-8) . He felt that the schools would retain all the attri- butes of small personalized schools. Mrs. Margaret K. Kalil, Preston Road, expressed herself as being concerned. She said that she was an educated women with a high I.Q. and did not want to be emotional, and wanted the school committee and administration to know that those who were concerned about the issue of school closings were not emotional malcontents but a group of indi- viduals who were concerned with the welfare of their children. s Page 195 December 13, 1977 Mr. John Fresina, North Hancock Street, said that the school de- partment should postpone the decision of Parker until the 1978 census figures were available and could be evaluated. Frank DiGiammarino assured him that data will be studied upon receipt as it is every year. Mrs. Charles Code, Flintlock Road, said that she was very concerned about the adjustment problems that students might have if the Parker School were closed. She said that one out of three students at Esta- brook would come from a closed school, and she felt that there would be incredible amounts of time and staff needed to assist in this adjustment. Mrs. Sheila Wells, Nichols Road expressed her challenge to the in- formation regarding the town planner's comments. She stated that his facts did not agree with information emanating from Princeton University. She asked Mr. Briggs, who was in attendance at the invitation of the school committee, if he felt that due to sliding mortgage rates that the comment he made that young couples were being discouraged from Lex- ington applied. He said that his experience would indicate that his com- ments would be valid. He said he did not take the sliding mortgage rates into consideration but felt it would not alter his viewpoint. He said that he did not know what the comments attributed to him were in the re- port. At this point, Mr. Hoffman expressed concern that Mr. Briggs had not read or seen the report in which he was quoted. Dr. DiGiammarino said that he had discussed the comments with Mr. Briggs and the comments were not quotations, but reports of views confirming that those trends considered by the cuumnittee to study the Reassignment of Pupils Report were still valid. Mr. Briggs was then asked to comment about the long term projections for population growth in the town of Lexington. He presented four dif- ferent methods that were used to arrive at his projections which said that Lexington would grow in population by approximately 525 people by 1985. He said that little acreage was left to be developed and soaring land prices and erosion of population at the lower age brackets would mean fewer students in the Lexington Schools in the future. Dr. Lawson stated that the administration had to react in its study to that which is consistent with the school committee policy. The ad- ministrative report had been developed consistent with the policy adop- ted unanimously by the school committee. He said that several people were involved independently in developing parts of the report, and that on the basis of their inputs, he recommended that Parker School be closed and students be reassigned to Estabrook and Bridge Schools in the 1978-79 school year. A member of the audience requested that each school committee mem- ber comment on the report: Mr. Michelman said school committee members would not feel 'comfortable offering views about the proposed school clos- ing before they had had a chance to discuss their questions with one another and the Superintendent. Since the hearing was that evening, he Page 196 December 13, 1977 would need to evaluate the comments made by the public and would take them under advisement and then make a conclusion. He also noted that in the case of any school closing in any year, the cost savings were crucial and that if small savings were to be achieved perhaps it was the responsibility of the committee to say it was not the time to close a school or it might say that due to certain factors the time to close a school had come. Mrs. Swanson said that the comments made that even- ing by parents and the school committee would be discussed at a future meeting. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11:08 p.m. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted; _y.,r/ -; Owe R 4Tr' i�"/C•).b..b�`^—' hard H,: Barnes /k Recordplg Secretary