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