Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-09-SC-min Page 6 January 9, 1978 The Lexington School Committee met at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School Monday, January 9, 1978, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Brown, Gaudet, Hoffman, Michelman and student representative Miller. Also present were: Lawson, Spiris, Monderer, Maclnnes and Barnes. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll #14-P $434,256.27 Expenses January 6, 1978 Bill Schedule #104 10,354.75 January 6, 1978 #105 13,276.61 Athletics December 16, 1977 Payroll #7 1,339.50 December 30, 1977 #8 186.00 January 6, 1978 Bill Schedule #17 118.57 SPECIAL PROGRAMS - Non-Lexington Funds Driver Education - Adult Ed. December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll 1,013.50 METCO December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll 4,847.98 LEADS December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll 856.19 PL 94-142 Grant - Transition to Employment December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll 603.84 Title I: PL 89-313 Special Education December 30, 1977 Professional Payroll 740.69 It was MINUTES OF 11/22/77 VOTED: to accept the minutes of November 22, 1977 as amended. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (professional and clas- (PROFESSIONAL sified) (Hoffman, Michelman, Unanimous) CLASSIFIED) Retirement Resignation Page 7 January 9, 1978 Resignations (continued) Mr. Hoffman inquired as to the reason for the resignation of George HEAD OF MAINTE- Norris, Head of Maintenance, Repairs and Custodians, who had been appoint- NANCE-RESIGNA- ed approximately one month prior to this meeting. Mr. Maclnnes informed TION the school committee that Mr. Norris had expressed dissatisfaction with the position. Mr. Norris said the position was not what he had expected. He had expected the job to have more responsibility and authority, not a "nuts and bolts" position. Mr. Maclnnes also noted that he received the Norris resignation without warning and expressed great disappoint- ment with Norris regarding his action. Dr, Lawson said he had tried to contact Norris several times at his home and at his residence at Cape Cod. He had been unable to contact him, but would continue to do so, and would respond as soon as possible. Dr. Lawson reviewed the Environmental Education Proposal developed ENVIRONMENTAL in cooperation with EDCO (Education Collaborative for Greater Boston) . EDUCATION He informed the committee that unlike some federal grants, it required PROPOSAL a vote of the school committee prior to submission. It was VOTED: to authorize the superintendent of schools to make application for federal funding for the Environmental Education Proposal under Public Law 91-516. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Dr. Monderer reviewed a memorandum sent to principals regarding TESTING PROGRAM changes in the '77-'78 testing program. He noted he accepted the re- & SCHEDULE commendation of the Testing Committee, which in addition to him con- 1977-78 sisted of two principals, two teachers and a psychologist. The recom- mendations were 1) to replace the short form Test of Academic Aptitude with the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test at Grade 2; 2)revert to a lower level of the CTBS test at Grades 2, 4 and 6; and 3) schedule elementary school testing for January-February, 1978, instead of April-May. The SFTAA Test was being replaced due to its blatant sexist content. While recognizing the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test did have some sexists items, they were less blatant and few in number. Mr. Michelman said he got the impression from the report that some staff members felt somewhat queasy as to whether Lexington should be us- ing any mental ability test at the second grade at all after reading the recommendations. Dr. Monderer explained the individual mental ability test at the second grade was less reliable, but the committee recognized the need to use some sort of instrument to assess mental ability in order to make recommendations for the Special Abilities Program. Mr. Michelman asked if other information was used for recommendations for the Special Abilities Program. Dr. Monderer replied that the Basic Skills test, Ap- titude Test, and recommendations from teachers were used in final recom- mendations. Mr. Michelman wondered if the ability grouping study would address his comment as well as other areas of the Testing Program. Dr. Lawson responded that he felt that the study would respond to Mr. Michel- man' s concerns. Mr. Hoffman suggested a Standing Couuuittee on Testing Page 8 January 9, 1978 be considered to provide consistency rather than change committee compo- sition each year. Dr. Monderer said the charge of the committee was not to decide on major changes in the total testing program, but was limited to sexist evaluations, levels of testing, etc. Jonathan Miller asked if tests recently developed were completely free of sexism. Dr. Monderer said that publishers are aware of the concern and said that school sys- tems would not see any major revision until 1980 because of economic considerations. Mrs. Gaudet asked if the tests were reviewed for any racist stereotypes. Dr. Lawson noted that other questions regarding the Testing Program may be answered after the report of the guidance study. He suggested the subject be raised again after completion of the Guidance and Group- ing Studies the establishment of a long range standing committee could be reviewed at that time. Dr. Lawson reviewed approximately forty activities to take place SECONDARY PRO- on Wednesday, January 10, which was a release secondary professional FESSIONAL DE- development day. He said he was pleased with the scope of activities VELOPMENT DAY and noted that each teacher would participate in some activity. Mr. Michelman asked if the group leaders for the secondary activities had been recruited or volunteered. Dr. Lawson said that Lexington was for- tunate that department heads and teachers were willing to volunteer to coordinate these activities because it required a great deal of effort and considerable planning. Mrs. Swanson announced the following meetings: January 17, regular MEETING DATES school committee meeting; January 23, Appropriations meeting; and Jan- uary 24, regular school committee meeting. Mrs. Swanson requested the committee to consider discussion of the CHILDREN' S Children' s Puzzle at a future meeting. It was agreed to discuss the PUZZLE PUBLICA- publication at a future meeting. TION Mrs. Swanson noted that a segment of the meeting had been reserved SCHOOL CLOSING for the discussion of school closing consistent with its policy to do REPORT so upon request of staff or parent group of a school considered for closing. Mr. Jack Sarmanian, P.T.A. President, said he had received responses from parents about concerns of transition problems that re- sulted in the closing of Hancock School, and educational impact that a closing may have on a school. Mr. Terris and Dr. Goodridge, princi- pals of Estabrook and Bridge Schools respectively, responded to Mr. Sarmanian's comments. Mr. Terris said there had been no plans made re- garding transition because the school committee had not voted to close Parker School. He added that extensive planning would take place with parents and children, including gathering information, reviewing records, etc. , if Parker closed. He noted that normal types of problems could be expected when any group of students were entering a school as a re- sult of a school closing. Dr. Lawson noted that Miss Dillmore, former Hancock principal, documented the activities in the Hancock transition process which would be shared with the appropriate personnel if Parker School closed. Dr. Goodridge said he had experienced opening a school of 500 children and receipt of approximately 60 students was not a large number nor a problem. He said he would keep them all together in their assigned classes to retain friends. He would integrate them the year afterwards. He contemplated very few problems. Page 9 January 9, 1978 Mr. Sarmanian then asked about the criteria of transfers of stu- dents. Mrs. Swanson responded that the present transfer policy would govern transfers. Dr. Lawson noted that the open transfer policy stip- ulated that parents could request of their principal a request for a transfer to another school. The parent must give reasons and follow the normal procedures. He noted that the policy also stated that trans- portation was the responsibility of the parent. A parent asked what a principal would do if he received fifty-two requests for transfer. Dr. Lawson stated that no one had ever had that experience. However, the process of mass transfer had never been interwoven with the open trans- fer policy. He felt that if there were a violation of class sizes be- cause of transfers, etc. , a principal would probably reject them. He reiterated that the present transfer policy would govern the transfers. Mr. Charles Code, Flintlock Road, said his analysis of enrollment projections presented at Estabrook School had been misconstrued. He said he did not say that the school department' s Cohort-Survival Method was inappropriate but felt that it was not good for Lexington to use only one method. He felt the method should be augmented by the straight line method. Mrs. Gaudet said she had discussed the Hancock transition with staff and principals of the receiving schools, who felt there were no more dif- ficulties than normal. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Michelman expressed their views that the fore- cast for population trends in Lexington seemed somewhat bleak. They noted that it was not only concern for the School Committee but town of- ficials and the Town Meeting Members, and they acknowledged that the facts would have to be dealt with by the school committee members re- alistically. Mr. Michelman added that he felt that the Cohort-Survival Method used by the Lexington Schools for many years was quite accurate and responsive to community changes. A parent expressed concern for the need for building new schools in the 80' s if enrollment increased. Mr. Michelman responded by saying there would probably be an increase in the mid "eighties" but felt it would not be in the magnitude to require any new schools. Dr. Lawson added that statistics from the State and Na- tional levels had been used to project enrollment for Lexington. He felt if the planned closings of schools were completed the capacities of Lexington Schools in 1981 would be 74% of capacity which was suffic- ient margin for possible growth. Another group of parents felt the school committee should delay a decision on Parker School until new census information was available. Asked when the information would be available, Dr. Monderer said in three or four weeks. Mr. James Hansen, 96 North Hancock St. , told the committee he had a conversation with the chairman of the Committee to Study Reassignment of Pupils and called his report obsolete. He was disturbed that the school committee would use obsolete data in the school closing review. Mr. Hoffman interjected that most of the Citizens Committee to Study the Reassignment of Pupils consisted of criteria and not data that had become obsolete. Mr. Hansen said his next concern was students would Page 10 January 9, 1978 be bused 31 miles from their homes when another school was closer and space was available. He felt the study did not respond to the criteria. Mr. Hoffman said in as many cases as possible, the committee tried to respond but not all of the criteria could apply in all instances, but wherever possible the criteria were taken into consideration. Mr. Robert Lague, Lexington Education Association President, said his concerns included teacher assignment, future class teacher ratios, and capacities in the schools. In response to School Committee questions, Mr. Lague admitted that the closing of Parker and redistribution of pu- pils, to Estabrook and Bridge would not violate the LEA/SC Contract ar- ticle of system-wide class ratios. At this point, Otis Brown noted that the system-wide classroom ratios, which were below contractural agree- ments be improved again next year, as presented in the '78- ' 79 Personal Services Budget. Mr. Hoffman responded that even though this was true the budget was considered preliminary since the process of the school committee review might or might not affect the ratio. Mr. John Fresina presented a memorandum to the school committee in which he asked the committee to respond to a suggestion that the district line for the smaller segment of Parker School be reconsidered. The school commit- tee asked Dr. Lawson if it were possible to respond to the memorandum shortly. The superintendent said Mr. Barnes and Dr. DiGiammarino in- formed him that they could possibly have a response in three days or in time for the next meeting. Dr. Lawson disseminated a list of advantages and disadvantages that had been developed by administrators and the principals of Parker School, Estabrook School and Bridge School. (See 10A & 10B) After pre- sentation of the list, Mr. Hoffman challenged two of the statements in- cluded as advantages: 1) that Parker School students would benefit from attending higher achieving schools, and 2) that most teachers preferred larger schools. Mr. Hoffman felt the comparison as inappropriate. Dr. Lawson responded that the survey of teachers in the EPSR indicated that most teachers did prefer larger schools. The other statement had been suggested by Dr. Pierson who was not in attendance. Due to the lateness of the hour, it was decided that the remaining agenda item would be deferred until the next meeting. It was announced that the next meeting would take place at 4:00. p.m. Friday, January 13, at the Clarke Junior High School. The topic of the agenda would be the Parker School Closing. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 11:25 p.m. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary Page 10A PARKER SCHOOL CLOSING: Advantages: • Savings in cost estimated at $138,910. can be diverted to programs affecting all students. The assignment of full time specialists in Art, Music, French, Physical Edu- cation and Guidance at Estabrook and Bridge Schools. - More flexibility at Estabrook and Bridge Schools resulting from a larger faculty. - Better facilities for Parker students in physical education, art, music, French and library. - Larger budgets for Estabrook and Bridge School permitting the selection and purchase of more books, supplies and equipment. - More equitable distribution of resources throughout the system. For example, a principal, secretary, etc. , for 400 rather than 200 students. Better utilization of limited supervisory personnel with 13 rather than 14 schools in the system. - A more diversified student population should provide a richer environment at Estabrook and Bridge Schools. - A greater variety of teaching and learning opportunities will result for children at every level at Estabrook and Bridge Schools. - Larger schools are generally preferred by faculty for the intellectual-profes- sional environment according to the EPSC report . Central Curriculum Services such as mathematics, science, social studies, language arts and drama will be more effectively provided because there would be fewer buildings to service. - Articulation between sixth and seventh grades would be improved with fewer schools sending pupils to a junior high school. - High achieving receiving schools should have a positive impact on Parker stu- dents. - Consolidation of schools should allow better opportunities for instructional improvement. Fewer system personnel reduces the School Committee's and Town's costs of providing fringe benefits such as hospitalization coverage, workmen's compen- sation and retirement benefits. - Students needs can better be matched with teachers ' strengths when there are several classes at a particular grade level rather than one or two. Page 10B - Teachers can develop specialities more easily at Estabrook and Bridge Schools since they will not have to assume multiple responsibilities for representing their school on town-wide committees, curriculum groups, etc. Students will attend newer schools which have better lighting and ventilation, as well as more space to learn and grow. - More flexibility in organizing class sizes and arranging the student make-up of classes. Broadened opportunities for better instructional possibilities in regular and special areas. Disadvantages: - Loss of a neighborhood school. - Loss of a more intimate school setting. - Disruptions and adjustments for students and teachers in a school functioning very well. - Estabrook and Bridge Schools would continue to be grossly underused (if Parker is not closed) - Additional transportation costs. Some students and parents may experience a temporary sense of dislocation. - Children from one school (group) will be divided into two schools (groups), - The possibility that "a prudent margin" will not be present and music, or other special subjects or group of students would he housed in a location other than shown on the principal 's proposed floor plan of classroom utilization. - The larger schools might be less personal. - Less flexibility in space utilization at Estabrook and Bridge Schools. - Less administrative time for each student and parent because Parker students would be attending larger schools.