Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-03-SC-min Page 1 January 3, 1978 The Lexington School Committee met at the Clarke Junior High School January 3, 1978, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Michelman, Hoff- man, Brown, Swanson, Gaudet and student representative Miller. Also pre- sent were: Lawson, Barnes, Spiris, Pierson, Monderer and Maclnnes. 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 December 23, 1977 Classified Payroll #14-C $ 74,657.28 December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll #13-P 438,222.21 December 12, 1977 #12-A 34,857.84 Expenses December 23, 1977 Bill Schedules #96 4,015.74 December 23, 1977 #97 2,953.45 December 23, 1977 #98 9,149.44 December 23, 1977 #99 16,555.54 December 23, 1977 #100 48,190.19 December 30, 1977 #101 4,950.91 December 30, 1977 #102 4,929.84 December 30, 1977 #103 3,305.41 Out-of-State Travel December 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #8-A 181.60 December 30, 1977 #9 200.2.7 Athletics December 30, 1977 Bill Schedule #16 1,188.86 Vocational Education December 23, 1977 Transportation #7-v 149.91 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - Non-Lexington Funds Adult Education December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll 529.70 December 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #5 5.00 DRIVER EDUCATION (Adult Education) December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,466.42 METCO December 23, 1977 Classified Payroll 1,509.06 December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll 5,130.20 December 23, 1977 Bill Schedule #5 50.00 LEADS December 23, 1977 Classified Payroll 1,245.10 December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll 856.19 PL 94-142 GRANT - TRANSITION TO EMPLOYMENT December 23, 1977 Classified Payroll 450.66 December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll 603.84 Page 2 January 3, 1978 TITLE I: PL 89-313 - SPECIAL EDUCATION December 16, 1977 Professional Payroll $ 929.69 TEACHER TRAINING II December 23, 1977 Bill Schedule 500.00 LOW INCOME December 30, 1977 Bill Schedule #4 282.68 Mrs. Gaudet began the discussion noting that she had made a visit SCHOOL CLOSING to Hastings School. She said that she had discussed the adjustment of REPORT Hancock students with teachers and principal, and reported that students have seemed to adjust very well, and that there were no more problems than usual. She said that she toured Hastings room by room. Mrs. Gaudet noted that her second concern was regarding the utilization of some of the rooms at Estabrook, specifically the music room. She said she toured the building in order to receive an answer to her second concern. She noted she planned to visit Fiske, also. She encouraged members of the school committee to tour the buildings to receive answers to questions and concerns. Mr. Brown said that he shared Mrs. Gaudet' s concerns. He said he had questions especially at Estabrook if enrollment shifts occurred in the number of 30-40 students. He said he was interested in the reports submitted by parents and felt he had been open and receptive to change in programs and was concerned with quality education, also. He said he had supported the addition of the drama and language arts specialists this past year and could do so since savings occurred by closing Hancock. He noted that it was a year to negotiate a new contract and the school committee had to look at ways to trim the budget. He felt the Lexing- ton Schools could still improve its quality while being frugal. Mr. Michelman said that he was trying to place the September report beside the school committee guidelines to compare the Parker School Clos- ing Report with the School Closing Policy voted by the committee. He said the items that were of concern were prudent margin, enrollments and boundaries. He said it was essential to combine facts and educa- tional judgment, but was still left at the moment without a confident answer. Mr. Terris was asked to verify the utilization and capacity of Esta- brook School. He reviewed the utilization of the building, and said that he was fully satisfied that music instruction would be adequate in the large group instruction space, or in a smaller area. He also said that he was satisfied that Estabrook could accommodate learning disabilities, reading, library, etc., with the 16 classrooms organization. Mr. Michel- man noted another concern, METCO and transfer students. He said that even though the numbers were small, they were important because the de- cision depended on narrow tolerance. He felt that METCO students should not be separated from host families and that transfers from Parker, orig- inally from Bridge, should be assigned to Estabrook. Dr. Lawson replied stating that all METCO students would be assigned to the same school as student host families, and that the present 4 would go to Bridge, 3 to Estabrook, and 1 was not assigned. He noted that originally during October, the METCO Coordinator, John Modest, discussed the issue with Mr. Barnes. Mr. Modest placed all 8 students into the Bridge School because he wanted them to be together. In the meantime due to the prob- Page 3 January 3, 1578 lem of getting host families distribution changed, Dr. Lawson agreed that the 3 transfers would be assigned to Estabrook School. Dr. Lawson noted that there were also seats available at Estabrook, if one used planning figures vs. contract figures. He noted that for the purpose of the report, the capacity was rated as the number of classrooms X the contract number of 24. In planning figures, no classes were planned for more than 26 pupils. Mr. Hoffman said he was still undecided on the school closing mat- ter. He emphasized that the most important issue was that Parker may close, and the closing of a viable education institution is a matter that should not be taken lightly. He reminded everyone that it was a unani- mous vote of the school committee that had adopted the existing guide- lines. The guidelines were to assure that debate on the issue would proceed in an organized and orderly manner. He added that even though it was true that the impact of closing Parker might focus on the small segment of the Parker district being reassigned to Bridge School, the issue needed to be addressed within the school committee's adopted guide- lines. Similarly, a viable and valuable quality education could take place with more than 421 or 427 students at Estabrook, he noted, but that this was not the issue, since the guidelines specified limitations on the number of students at a receiving school. He concluded that the sig- nificant issue to be addressed by the school committee was "prudent mar- gin" in the projected number of Estabrook students. Mrs. Swanson said that it was unfortunate that some parents were not in town long enough to realize that school district assignment in the neigh- borhood had changed several times. She asked Mr. Barnes to comment on the district lines of Parker School over the past few years. He noted that segments of Parker School had attended Estabrook School, as well as Bridge School. She noted that Parker was rated an inferior facility in a report of parents a few years ago. She emphasized the impact of sav- ings of approximately $140,000 to be saved if Parker School closed. She felt the school committee had an obligation to the taxpayer. Mr. Michelman agreed that the projected saving was not negligible and that the school coumiittee did have an obligation to the taxpayer not to spend money wastefully. But he felt that the size of the saving would not be such as to warrant closing Parker this year, but wait a year, if that would not seriously violate the committee's educational standards. He said the effect upon the community which he felt was a division, was a problem that should be taken seriously, especially for those living in the smaller partition. He said he hoped there would be other ways to accommodate the students. Dr. Lawson responded that the administration could not make a proposal to the contrary as the guidelines were defined by the school committee. Mr. Hoffman noted the line drawn by the Advis- ory Committee, had been drawn in the wrong place. Yet, the committee tried to use as many of its criteria as possible in each case, and even though the line drawn was not necessarily natural, perhaps other lines would be more devastating. He said he would be happy to consider other possibilities. Dr. Lawson reiterated his comment by noting that after six months of discussions and suggestions, a policy on closing was voted, and the administration had updated its report in accordance with the pol- icy, and applied the criteria to the policy. He noted there was no def- inition of what the prudent margin of error was and could only present the facts as they existed. He noted that the capacity figures used were conservative. He added that it was the committee' s decision as to whether 5% constituted a prudent margin. Page 4 January 3, 1978 At this point Mr. Jack Sarmanian, Parker P.T.A. President requested PARENT REQUEST another open meeting on the issue of Parker School Closing. He felt that there were other items from parents who had yet to voice their opinions. It was agreed that a segment of the January 9, meeting would be devoted to the Parker School closing. Dr. Pierson reviewed high school class sizes under 15 for the school CLASS SIZES committee and presented a report containing courses presently under the guideline limitations, courses that had been added and/or dropped by the department, and commented on the reasons for each. Dr. Clune and Mr. Wilson traced the development of the courses. Mr. Michelman asked Dr. Clune if he expected to see the small num- ber of classes continue to decline and their intention to bring classes into a standard range. Dr. Lawson said he hoped the trend would not con- tinue because there needed to be diversity for a quality program. Mr. Hoffman asked to what extent offerings and closing of sections were af- fected by the qualifications of the teaching staff. He also asked if there were a problem of non-interchangeability. Mr. Davenport said that in social studies there were some complications due to the different fields or specialities of staff. Mr. Michelman said it was after review of this report it seemed appropriate that the school committee express its policy in nore specific language, and proposed the following policy statement. "Small classes (under 15 students) should not be held except where it is necessary or desirable to provide a full program of instruction to students in subjects and at levels suited to their abilities and prior studies. Exceptions to this policy shall be made by principals on ap- proval of the superintendent of schools." Upon the recouuuendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL (PROFESSIONAL) VOTED: to accept the following new personnel (professional) . (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) New Personnel Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGE (PROFESSIONAL) VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (professional) . (Brown, Micheiman, Unanimous) Retirement • Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS TYPEWRITERS VOTED: that orders for typewriters be placed with IBM in the amount of $2525, based on their low bid meeting specifications. (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Dr. Monderer presented an informational bulletin to the school cam- REPLACE - mittee reviewing the proposal for the collaboration with the Replace Out- OUTREACH WORKER reach Worker, Lexington Board of Health and Lexington Public Schools, Page 5 January 3, 1978 requested that his grievance LEA #77-78-3 be heard in executive session. The school committee agreed to his request. It was EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTED: to adjourn to executive session at 10:48 p.m. to discuss a matter of negotiations. (Michelman, yes; Brown, yes; Gaudet, yes; Swanson, yes; Hoffman, yes) It was announced that the school committee would probably return to public session later in the evening. It was VOTED: to deny grievance 77-78-3. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11:40 p.m. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary