Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-13-SC-min Page 11 January 13, 1978 The Lexington School Committee met at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School, Friday, January 13, 1978, at 4:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Swanson, Gaudet, Brown, Michelman, Hoffman and student representative Miller. Also present were: Lawson, Spiris, Monderer, Maclnnes and Barnes. Mrs. Geraldine Foley, 28 Wyman Road stated she had been in contact PUBLIC with Mr. Bishop, Massachusetts State Department of Education physical PARTICIPATION plant specialist. She reviewed with him Lexington's problem of declin- ing enrollment, closing of schools, and the concept of "prudent margin" in enrollments. Mr. Bishop said that school closings were relatively new to the State Department and had no established guidelines. He recommended that schools be utilized no more than 85% of capacity. Mrs. Foley added that because of the prudent margin concept and the possible error in enrollment projections, she requested the School Committee de- lay the closing of Parker School for one year. She also complimented the school committee and administration for the gracious receptivity to remarks of parents during the hearings on Parker School, and felt the process had been approached in a fine manner. Dr. Lawson said that the plan submitted by Mr. Fresina had been SCHOOL CLOSING reviewed by Dr. DiGiarmnarino, Coordinator of Planning, and Mr. Barnes, Director of Planning and Research. Dr. DiGiammarino reviewed the sta- tistical results of Mr. Fresina's proposal, in which the smaller seg- ment of Parker had been split into two sub-districts, Parker A and Par- ker B; with students being assigned to Estabrook and Fiske rather than Bridge School. He also reviewed statistics for the closing of Munroe School in 1979-1980 with students being assigned to Fiske. He noted that in 1978-79 Estabrook School received Parker B students and would be at 100% utilization in Grades 1 through 6; and 102% utilization Grades K-6. He noted that the report had been developed in accordance with the School Closing Policy guidelines. He stated that Fiske School would receive Parker A students and would be at 98.3% capacity, Grades K-6; therefore, Fiske would not gain space for specialists' room as planned. He added that when Fiske School received Parker A students plus Munroe 4 and 5 students in 1979-80, Fiske would be well over ca- pacity with 104% utilization. Mr. Michelman said he did a similar analysis but he did not have access to computer data. His results were approximately the same. Dr. Lawson said that based on the information, he would not recommend that the Parker "small district" be split into two districts as outlined in Mr. Fresina's proposal. Mr. Hoffman said he looked at the proposal al- so and agreed that there seemed to be no workable solution under the present guidelines. At this point, Mr. Brown MOVED: that the school committee endorse the superintendent's recamnenda- tion to proceed with the closing of Parker School in September, 1978, and request the administration to do everything in its power to accommo- date requested transfers from those parents in the smaller of the two Parker districts and direct the administration to deduct $135,500 from the 1978-79 school budget. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Gaudet. Page 12 January 13,1978 Mr. Michelman said he felt that it was unwise to include the deduc- tion of the Parker School savings since the budget had yet to be dis cussed. Mr. Hoffman said that he agreed since the figure could not be exact at this time. Mrs. Swanson said she would prefer to see it con- tained in the motion and deducted from the budget since the present budget had the Parker figure in it. Mrs. Gaudet said she agreed with the idea of deduction, but felt that the motion was not really necessary. At this point, Mr. Brown withdrew the motion. He then MOVED: that the school committee endorse the superintendent's recommenda- tion to proceed with the closing of Parker School on September, 1978, and request the administration to do everything within its power to ac- commodate the requested transfers from parents in the smaller of the two Parker districts. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Gaudet. At this point Mr. Michelman moved to amend the motion with the following resolu- tion: RESOLUTION 1. It is the sense of the School Committee that, using the enroll- ment projections reflected in the Superintendent' s Report on Analysis of School Closings dated November, 1977, the closing of Parker School as therein recommended appears warranted under the guidelines set forth in the School Committee' s Policy on School Closings dated October, 1977. 2. The School Committee further notes that enrollment variations of just a few students could create a situation in which the closing of Parker School would cause a violation at Estabrook School of the Committee's guidelines for receiving school pro- grams and capacities. Therefore, the Committee will withhold final action until the enrollment projections for Parker and Estabrook Schools, for 1978-79, have been updated with data from the January, 1978, school census, now in progress. 3. The School Committee intends to act promptly upon presentation of the updated enrollment projections. (a) If the updated projections are no higher than those of No- vember 1, as reflected in the Superintendent's Report, the Committee intends to vote to close Parker School as therein recommended. (b) If the updated projections exceed those reflected in the Report, the Committee, as advised by the Superintendent, will determine whether the excess is such as to require the formation of more or larger classes in Estabrook School than can fit there consistently with the Committee's guide- lines. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoffman. He said the key part of the substitution was the second paragraph that recommended that the prudent way of operation was to wait for the January census since there was concern about enrollment at the kinder- garten level. He felt the kindergarten tolerance was too small. Mrs. Page 13 January 13, 1978 Swanson stated there was plenty of room at Estabrook and noted that the building had been built for 621 students. She said that even though the planning guidelines was 18 at kindergarten level, she had never said that she would not support more than 18 in a classroom. She also felt there was concern for support of kindergarten classroom sizes such as at Bowman (13,13 & 13) . Mr. Michelman said the school committee had the document for some time with the kindergarten class sizes and possible teacher assignments listed and there were no questions. He said his orig- inal .point was to suggest a review of the '78 census not to evaluate kind- ergarten classroom size. Mr. Hoffman said the committee should not per- mit such a change in the guidelines for discussion. He said the school committee guidelines were passed by the committee to simplify and organ- ize the discussion process. He agreed that a more prudent way to pro- ceed would be to consider the January census material. He said that there were two major questions--Does the potential closing of Parker School conform to the adopted school committee guidelines? How big was the risk? He said the school committee should address these two issues. He noted that if the projections were correct he felt the guidelines would be satisfied. He reiterated his agreement with Mr. Michelman' s recommendation that due to possible enrollment variations of just a few students it would be prudent to wait for the January, 1978, school census. A vote was called on the amendment: (No, Brown, Swanson, Gaudet, Yes, Hoffman, Michelman) Mr. Michelman said the superintendent's recommendation was probably the correct one and warranted under the school committee's guidelines, but he felt that since a more prudent course would be to do what he pro- posed in the substitute motion, he would vote, no on the motion. Mr. Hoffman said he was disappointed that the school committee would not agree to wait to look at the January data. He stated he could possibly vote for closing if the January census data indicated no problems, and if the enrollment projections and utilizations were correct which he assumed they were. He said his "no" vote only suggested waiting for the census data, but felt the superintendent' s recommendation did fall within the school committee guidelines. A vote was called on the amendment: (No, Brown, Swanson, Gaudet, Yes, Hoffman, Michelman) Mr. Michelman said the superintendent' s recommendation was probably the correct one and warranted under the school committee's guidelines, but he felt that since a more prudent course would be to do what he pro- posed in the substitute motion, he would vote, no on the motion. Mr. Hoffman said he was disappointed that the school committee would not agree to wait to look at the January data. He stated he could possibly vote for closing if the January census data indicated no problems, and if the enrollment projections and utilizations were correct which he assumed they were. He said his "no" vote only suggested waiting for the census data, but felt the superintendent's recommendation did fall within the school committee guidelines. A vote was called. (Yes, Brown, Swanson, Gaudet; No, Hoffman, Michel- man) . Page 14 January 13, 1978 Mrs. Swanson thanked the administration on behalf of the school com- mittee for its extensive work on the school closing issue. The superintendent began the presentation on the 1978-79 Personal PERSONAL Services School Budget with the following statement: SERVICES BUDGET 1978-79 "All of the original school budget requests for 1978-79 totaled $17,692,940, or 12.4% above the 1977-78 budget of $15,746,245. This total did not include funds for salary and wage increases expected to result from this year' s negotiations with the various employee groups. After all of the requests were reviewed at different levels, the total has been reduced to $15,740,406 or .04 less than last year's budget. It has not been an easy process to consider all of the budget requests and arrive at this figure because escalating costs of many of the ser- vices and materials required to sustain a quality school system are significant. It was necessary, however, to do this in light of the budget guidelines which were adopted a few months ago. '1 cannot commend highly enough the department heads, principals, and central office administrators who have provided me with responses to the many inquiries I made about their budget requests so I could be assured that Lexington will be able to maintain its present high qual- ity of public education at the preliminary budget figure which I am presenting to you. 'There are many increases in the budget that are beyond the control of the administration. 'They include: 1. Regular salary andwage increases required under past negotiated contracts with all employee groups . (Professional and Certified) 2. Major increases in tuition for residential students placed under Chapter 766. 3. The escalating costs of fuel and electricity. 4. A major increase in telephone rates. Some decreases which were used to counteract the increases were: 1. The reduction of several regular and special teachers positions at various grade and school levels. (Possible because of de- clining enrollments) 2. A reduction in regular and substitute secretarial and aide time. 3. A reduction in the allocation for substitute teachers. 4. A reduction in the budget amount for tutoring expense for atypi- cal children. 5. The reduction of two special needs positions. Page 15 January 13, 1978 'Other possible reductions in the school budget still being con- sidered by the administration are: savings which will be realized if Parker School is closed; the possible reduction of four more teaching positions because of declining enrollments at the junior high schools; and the reduction of some administrative time in the secondary schools. In addition to these possible cuts, there are several other categories of the budget still being studied which may result in further budget decreases. ' Several additional costs must be considered before the budget is completed. They include funds for: 1. Curriculum improvement programs. 2. School crossing guards. (requested by the Selectmen) 3. Improvements around the high school field house embankment area. 4. A program for non-English speaking students. 'Even without adding probable negotiated salary and wage increases to the 1978-79 budget, the compilation of a preliminary budget which shows a slight decrease over the 1977-78 amount is a remarkable achieve- ment. It was not easy. Despite some savings that could be affected by an anticipated decline in enrollment of approximately 67., all costs as- sociated with administering the school system had to be examined care- fully to reach the final figure. Some costs in the budget affect the entire system while others are uniquely associated with a department, program or school. Consequently, some costs, such as those for electri- city and the residential placement of 766 students, cannot be easily controlled by the administration. They must be considered separately from some of the controlled costs associated with meeting the needs of regular students throughout this system. There are other school costs, however, such as those for the civic use of buildings and the purchase of library books which can be controlled. After reducing every cost that could be controlled next year, without adversely affecting the qual- ity of the education in Lexington, I am pleased to present to you a very frugal, preliminary 1978-79 budget. This responds, I believe, to the school committee's September 13th budget guidelines and, as well, re- flects the plight of the Lexington taxpayer as it considers the 6,748 students who are expected to attend the Lexington Public Schools next year." Mr. Hoffman asked the superintendent to comment on the process used for budget development. Dr. Lawson noted that each person responsible for budget building was given the guidelines which suggested that each person responsible for a budget was permitted within the guidelines to suggest other areas to utilize resources, rather than ask for increases. He said that most requested increases dealt with non-personnel items. He noted that only two proposals for staff increases had been received. At this point, the committee proceeded through the Personal Services Budget. Mr. Hoffman suggested that Mr. Maclnnes separate changes in per- ACCOUNT 1200-1 sonnel and regular increments in his notation and provide the school (ADMINISTRATION) committee with the breakdown for each category. Mr. Maclnnes agreed to the request. Page 16 January 13, 1978 Accounts 1200-2 (Secretarial and Clerical - C.O.) and 2111-1A (De- partment Heads) were reviewed briefly. The Professional Development Account showed a decrease of $24,620. ACCOUNT 2100-1B Dr. Lawson said that Dr. Pierson had not completed the budget section PROFESSIONAL to make a concrete proposal but the figure would be received later. DEVELOPMENT The secretarial and clerical accounts, for department heads and professional development were reviewed. Account 2100-1 (Principals) was reviewed. Dr. Lawson noted the increase of $1,7146 was for regular sal- ary increments effective July, 1978. Dr. Lawson noted that the 2300-1 Account (teachers) indicated a net reduction of $49,410 which included an increase of $153,385 for regular increments for staff, and a reduction of $188,645 or 13.01 teachers due to declining enrollment. At this point, a discussion of kindergarten staffing took place. Mrs. Swanson expressed concern with an increase of one student systemwide for 1978-79 and an increase of 1z teachers as pre- sented by the administration. She felt some classes were extremely small. She noted that this account needed more review. Dr. Lawson said that he felt it was wise to plan a budget for possible increases, but if they did not occur, the money was not spent. He said if projections were off a little some extra help would be needed for kindergarten staffing, and it could be a problem if money was not in the budget. It was agreed to discuss this account further at a future meeting. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 6:02 p.m. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary