Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-31-SC-min Page 26 January 31, 1978 A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on January 31, 1978, at the School Administration Building at 8:00 p.m. Present were Swanson, Hoffman, Gaudet, Brown, Michelman. Also present were Lawson, Spiris, Maclnnes, Monderer, Pierson, Barnes and student representative Miller. It was EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES VOTED: to approve the Executive Session Minutes of July 11, 1977, as 7/11/77 corrected. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) VOTED: to approve the Executive Session Minutes of December 20, 1977 12/20/77 as corrected. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) VOTED: to approve the Executive Session Minutes of August 8, 1977, as 8/8/77 corrected. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) VOTED: to approve the Executive Session Minutes of January 17, 1978, 1/17/78 as corrected. (Gaudet, Michelman, Unanimous) It was MINUTES 1/17/78 VOTED: to approve the minutes of January 17, 1978, as corrected. (Michelman, Brown, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following Schedule of Payments. (Brown, Micheiman, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services January 20, 1978 Classified Payroll #16C $73,331.31 Expenses January 27, 1978 Bill Schedule #113 1,837.20 January 27, 1978 #114 3,090.74 January 27, 1978 #115 30,031.13 January 27, 1978 #116 89,283.61 Athletics January 27, 1978 Bill Schedule #20AE 551.50 SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Non-Lexington Funds) Driver Education January 27, 1978 Bill Schedule #6 9.30 METCO January 20, 1978 Classified Payroll 1,259.79 LEADS January 20, 1978 Classified Payroll 1,375.10 PL-142 Grant - Transition to Employment January 20, 1978 Classified Payroll 450.66 January 27, 1978 Bill Schedule #7 1,102.50 Page 27 January 31, 1978 Ticket Account January 27, 1978 Bill Schedule #3 1,145.80 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL (PROFESSIONAL) VOTED: to accept the following new personnel (Professional) (Brown, Hoffman, Unanimous) Name Maternity Leave PERSONNEL CHANGE: Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept the above personnel changes (professional) (Brown, Michelman, Unanimous) Jonathan Miller said he had become aware of the lack of uniformity HANDBOOK RULES and availability of school rules and regulations in the system. He noted & REGULATIONS that by law these rules and regulations were to be filed by the school committee with the State Board of Education. He said he and other stu- dents would be willing to work with the administrators on a rules hand- book. The superintendent and school committee agreed that this would be a good idea. Dr. Lawson said that he had spoken to principals in October about this item after the Students' Rights document had been adopted by the school committee. He said he was aware Lexington was not in compliance with the State Board of Education's requirements. He added that princi- pals would be agreeable to development of the rules and regulations and asked authorization to proceed. The school committee agreed that the superintendent should proceed. Mr. Barnes at the request of the school committee, made a presen- COHORT SURVIVAL tation regarding Cohort Survival Method of projected enrollments. He METHOD OF PROJECT read the following memorandum: (See Pages 27A, 27B 27C) ED ENROLLMENTS Mrs. Swanson read the modification of Article 34 as suggested by ARTICLE 34 Town Counsel, Norman Cohen regarding surplus property. No action was taken on the item. The Vocational Education Budget was reviewed. Mr. Maclnnes ex- VOCATIONAL plained the courses selected by students and the accompanying expenses. EDUCATION Mr. Michelman asked if deadlines for applications were instituted to keep control of this budget. Mr. Maclnnes said there were no deadlines and Lexington was obligated to pay for tuition and transportation to the closest vocational education plant nearest the student's home that of- fered courses selected by the student. He felt that it was not legally possible to restrict applications. Page 27A LEXINGTON PUBLIC SC11OnLS • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02171 Memo to: Jack Lawson Suhjcct_ Coue-Sandv Proposals I From Dick Barnes A � _ pate __ 1L12/78 This memorandum is being sent to you to follow up on the Code-Sandy pro- posals , presented at the School Committee meeting at Escabrook School. You may wish to share this with School Committee members , For many years (+25) , the Lexington Public Schools has used the Cohort- Survival technique in its management operation - the results of which have been excellent . As normal routine, the School Department, each year, reviews the actual versus the projected enrollments , as well as , for 5-year periods , similar to what Mrs . Sandy presented. We continuously monitor enrollment changes in order to provide information for decisions of all kinds . The Cohort-Survival Method is a most precise and most laborious method. This method is one in which one projects the most probable number of children to be enrolled in each class , each year. Projections are obtained by multi- plying the number of children in the immediate lower grades of the previous year by the average percent change that has been experienced in that grade transition during the previous five years and applying it school by school. We receive information displayed by school, grade, sex, and other specific infor- oe mation that is requested . (Example: With or without Metco students) . The straight line method, as proposed by Mr. Code, is a method from a clus - ter of mathematical projections . It is a simple technique. The weakness is that it provides less reliable projections due to recent changes in fertility, mortality, and migration trends. The Cohort-Survival Method , however, for our purposes , is dependable for projections extending up to five years , and can , in practice, be used as far as ten years for secondary students . An entry in the text, "Urban/Planning and Design Criteria" , suggests the Cohort-Survival Method usable for up to twenty years . I suggest that our conservative five-year pro- jection span is most appropriate. The Town Census data is utilized annually (0-4 age statistic) . One point that must be made clear is that our data reflects not only children attending school, but also those critical changes that occur from students who move in and out. It is true that the census information is updated annually (January) , and an enrollment reading taken October 1. With the school closing issue , we have .ipdated our projections to November 1. If one wishes however, one can project as frequently as one wishes , because our Data Base changes daily. It reflects changes in all of -the buildings on a daily basis. In order to substantiate our findings , we reviewed with the Town Planning Office information they developed on population trends . Our projections were substantiated. Also reviewed were trends on student enrollments from National and State reports . They also substantiated the Lexington trend. Page 27B LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHUnL5 LEXINGTON, MASSACHhSEiTS 02173 Memo to: Jack Lawson - Subject Code-Sandy Proposals • From Dick Barnes Date 1/12/78 - 2 - The record suggests that we continue in our direction while utilizing new inputs at any time. We welcome such advice. Presently, we are planning to ad- dress the problem of those areas of error which have occurred for one reason or another. The record of the past five years deserves comment. Five Years - 1973-77 Projected vs . Actual Number of Students Percent Adams - 50 - 2 .8 Bowman - 63 - 2.6 Bridge - 29 - L .2 Estabrook - 29 - 1 .4 Fiske + 48 + 2.2 Franklin - 15 - ,g Hancock - - Barrington + 3 + .2 Hastings + 8 .4 Munroe + 24 + 2 .6 Parker - 5 - 4 • Totals - 42 2 Please note a study. of Grs . 1-6 for the years , 1973-77 . From the information, one can readily see that the study indicates that the variances are small . As one reviews the past five years , one notes that the span variance in projected versus actual was minus .2'/,. During this time period , it was required that pro- jections be made for. fifty-four entries in five years (11 schools in 4 years , . 10 schools in 1 year) with an approximate 1250 classrooms . This - .27 indicates that the methoe that we used is most appropriate. In the past fi. ;c years , there Page 27C LEXINGTON PuP.LIC sci acLS LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02173 Nemo to: Jack Lawson Subject Code-Sandy Proposals From Dick Barnes 1). rc 1/12/78 -3- mere five entries of all the possible items , which were +10% in error. It is interesting to note where these occurred . In four of the five cases , they were at the small schools (Adams , Munroe , Hancock) . The percent, actually, is mis- leading to some degree because when we start with the small base at the small school, a small number of students can influence the entire picture. In ad- dition, there were seven entries that were over 5%. Again, the majority at small schools . An additional study of years , 1970-74, the five-year total for grades 1-6, projected versus actual enrollment, was -.8%. Therefore, in reviewing the en- tire eight years , 1970-77 , we should be most pleased with the results of Cohort- Survival Method. The comment that the situation at Hastings was not unusual is unfounded. In fact, as one analyzes the history of the Hastings School over the past eight years , we can find that last year's experience was unusual. From 1970-74, Hastings School was -.6%; in 1975 it was -3.9%; and 1976,-3.87,; and 1977 , +10.5%. The 1977 variance has been accounted for. - Experience with the Estabrook School also indi- cates extreme satisfaction and accuracy over the past eight years . In conclusion, after careful study of all entries for the schools , Lexington should be satisfied with the Cohort-Survival Method. Thank you. RB/d cc : C.O. Administrators Page 28 January 31, 1978 Mr. Lord presented the Athletic Budget, and responded to questions ATHLETIC BUDGET from the school conuaittee. Mr. Lord, Director of Athletics, recommended the deletion of sophomore athletics at the high school. He said this recommendation was consistent with budget guidelines, the decline in en- rollment, the decline in participation, the problem of scheduling with other schools, and the lack of appropriate competition. He said his recommendation was being presented after discussion with coaches. He and the coaches felt this action would have the least effect upon the total program of the Lexington Public Schools. He estimated the cost savings would be approximately $11,000. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Michelman asked Mr. Lord what other options were looked at prior to his recommendation. Mr. Lord said he had re- viewed the whole picture before making a recommendation. Student representative Miller, expressed concern for deletion of inter-scholastic sports at the sophomore level. He felt students' needs would not be served. Mr. Lord felt that students would be served al- though he did feel that membership on the JV team would be more competi- tive. He also felt there were other sports to serve students beyond those recommended for deletion. Mr. Lord said he would like to upgrade the entire intra-mural program in the system. The school committee voiced its agreement with Mr. Lord' s focus to upgrade the intra-mural program. Mr. Lord responded to Mr. Hoffman's inquiry as to the reason for a decrease in the cleaning budget. He said boys were now launder- ing uniforms at home, thus saving funds. Mr. Hoffman noted that girls had been doing this and complimented Mr. Lord for this action and also the budget reduction of this item. Mr. Brown added that in no way did Mr. Lord's recommendation affect any Middlesex League participation. Mr. Lord then reviewed various items within the account responding to school committee questions. The school committee thanked Mr. Lord for his presentation and recommendations. Mr. Spiris presented a review of the junior high schools staffing STAFFING and course enrollments, and enrollment projections. Mr. Michelman asked if the development of the budget started with the ratio and then the determination of the number of teachers or was it developed in the oppo- site manner. He said to use only the ratios in determining the number of teachers was contrary to the program budget philosophy. Mrs. Swanson responded that the school committee had been very specific in its guide- lines which were a 15:1 ratio at the secondary level. Mr. Michelman said the result as presented by Mr. Spiris may be correct but questioned the process. Dr. Lawson said the school conmiittee's guidelines of Sep- tember 13, 1977, said that staffing ratios used in the 1977-78 budget, and other staffing ratios being developed would be employed in the prep- aration of the 1978-79 budget. He noted it was not possible this year to respond to program budget in the Personal Services section due to time constraints, but had done so in the non-personnel items. He felt the staffing was consistent with the guidelines of the school committee. Mr. Hoffman said he didn' t understand the superintendent' s comment that the guidelines had to be followed as a directive. He felt that the school committee should not direct the superintendent to follow a par- ticular ratio but only give guidelines. He said he would agree with Page 29 January 31, 1978 changes in the system due by next year, agreed with the presentation but took exception to the interpretation of the charge. The superin- tendent said his understanding was the school committee vote dictated the use of ratios for the school system. Mr. Hoffman added he also thought that one of the guidelines was to come in with a zero increase budget but the administration had not. Dr. Lawson responded that thus far the budget did have a zero increase, in fact, it reflected a de- crease. Mr. Hoffman added that no salary increases had been included. Mr. Spiris noted that the committee had the option to change the guidelines or to change any other item. He said that he agreed with Dr. Lawson with the use of the ratios and the budget building process. It was agreed to discuss the junior high school staffing when all prin- cipals had responded to Mr. Spiris's request for more information. The Contract Services Account was reviewed. Mrs. Swanson compli- CONTRACT mented the administration for the presentation of program goals and SERVICES descriptions, and felt it was an excellent way to present budget ma- ACCOUNT terial to the school committee. A discussion of the kindergarten program was held. Mrs. Swanson KINDERGARTEN asked if the introduction of a more formal reading program at the BUDGET#1105 kindergarten level was being considered. Dr. Pierson responded in the affirmative. He said there were plans to introduce a more formal readi- ness skills program at that level. The Arts Budget was reviewed by Mr. Ciano, Director of Visual Arts ARTS BUDGET Education. He responded to questions from the committee. #1110 The Business Education Budget was reviewed by Dr. Llewellyn. Some BUSINESS EDUCA- concern was expressed by the school committee regarding replacement of TION BUDGET equipment. Dr. Llewellyn noted some of the equipment was 12-23 years #1115 old. He noted some of the newer typewriters could not fit into the wells of the old furniture, and some of the furniture was not large enough for students. Mrs. Swanson asked if typing were still required at Diamond and optional at other junior high schools. Dr. Lawson answered in the af- firmative and said that it was the principal's prerogative. He said it was Diamond's determination to reduce the number of study halls, and a teacher had been available to offer a course for students. The course was combined with a developmental reading program. He noted the school administration needed to review optional versus mandatory courses. Dr. Hoffman added it would be wise to consider whether individual schools are to make mandatory programs, independent of the school committee's rights to make such determinations. The Home Economics Budget was then reviewed. Mrs. Griffin said HOME ECONOMICS her budget reflected an increase due to the introduction of a new course BUDGET #1130 (Child Psychology) at the junior high school level. The Music Budget was reviewed by Mr. Gillespie, Coordinator of MUSIC BUDGET Music. #1150 Atthis point, a member of the audience requested a school commit- PUBLIC INFORMA- tee response to the resignation of Mr. Norris, Head of Maintenance and TION REQUEST Repairs. Mrs. Swanson said that the committee would respond at a future date to the situation. Page 30 January 31, 1978 It was EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTED: to adjourn to Executive Session at 10:59 p.m. to discuss a mat- ter relating to the character and reputation of one or more in- dividuals. It was announced that the school committee would not be coming out of executive session. (Michelman, yes; Brown, yes; Daudet, yes; Hoffman, yes; Swanson, yes) Respectfully submitted, i —Richard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary