Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-23-SC-min Page 68 May 23, 1978 A meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held on May 23, 1978, at 8:00 p.m. at the Jonas Clarke Junior High School. Those in attend- ance were Swanson, Gaudet, Michelman, Brown, Hoffman and student repre- sentative Mende. Also present were: Lawson, Maclnnes, Pierson and Barnes. The meeting began with Mr. Brown commending the Lexington High School RECOGNITION OF Debate Team for being named the 1978 State Champions. Mr. Brown then in- DEBATE/MATH troduced Ray W. Karras, Debate Team Coach. Mr. Karras introduced the TEAMS members of the Debate Team. The Chairman read the School Committee pro- clamation which commended the Debate Team's accomplishment. Mr. Brown also noted that the Debate Team and Mathematics Team would be presented awards by the School Committee at its meeting of June 13th. The School Committee presented Paul Revere Bowls to Alice Ladd, SERVICE AWARDS Grade 3, Hastings School, 21 years of service and Clifford Baker, mathe- matics teacher, Lexington High School, 20 years of service in recognition of their years of service to the Lexington Public Schools. The committee expressed its best wishes for many happy, healthy years of retirement. Mr. Herbert Benson, 8 Paddock Lane, commented on the transportation PUBLIC of students to the Bowman School from the Paddock Lane area. He noted PARTICIPATION that the parents from this area were requesting the School Committee grant transportation due to the safety conditions of the area. Mr. Brown announced that the School Committee would discuss the Paddack Lane matter later on in the agenda. He thanked Mr. Benson for his remarks. It was MINUTES OF 5/9/78 VOTED: to approve the minutes of May 9, 1978 as amended. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) The minutes of 4/25/78 were deferred until the next meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSIOr MINUTES It was VOTED: to approve the Executive Session minutes of May 9, 1978, as amended. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll #23 $431,450.91 May 12, 1978 Classified Payroll #24 73,702.22 Page 69 May 23, 1978 Expenses May 12, 1978 Bill Schedules #170 $ 9,675.37 May 12, 1978 #171 38,298.39 May 12, 1978 #172 100.00 May 19, 1978 #173 29,457.46 May 19, 1978 #174 453.27 May 19, 1978 #175 2,725.94 May 19, 1978 #176 5,923.65 May 19, 1978 #177 36,556.24 May 19, 1978 #178 234.84 Out-of-State Travel May 12, 1978 Bill Schedule #17 777.00 Athletics May 19, 1978 Bill Schedule #33 2,748.06 May 19, 1978 Payroll #17 144.00 Vocational Education May 12, 1978 Tuition #19 150.00 May 12, 1978 Transportation #20 309.64 May 19, 1978 Transportation #21 384.54 SPECIAL PROGRAMS-Non-Lexington Funds Adult Education May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll 160.40 May 12, 1978 Classified Payroll 13.14 May 12, 1978 Bill Schedule #11 13.16 Driver Education - Adult Education May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll 1,333.22 May 19, 1978 Bill Schedule #10 307.91 METCO May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll 4,904.23 May 12, 1978 Classified Payroll 1,576.50 PL 94-124 Grant-Transition to Employment May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll 603.84 May 12, 1978 Classified Payroll 458.22 Title I PL 89-313 Special Education May 5, 1978 Professional Payroll 946.19 Bus Ticket Account May 19, 1978 Bill Schedule #10 951.75 LEADS May 19, 1978 Bill Schedule #36 663.38 The financial statement was discussed. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Page 70 May 23, 1978 Dr. Lawson noted that he and Mr. Pierson had approximately twenty CURRICULUM meetings with staff to view their reactions to the curriculum paper de- MANAGEMENT veloped by Mr. Pierson last year. He said the materials in the present agenda were a summary of these meetings. Mr. Pierson said his summary contained four major areas which per- tained to the curriculum design. They were implementing curriculum, mandating curriculum, departing from the established curricula and af- fective education. He stated that elementary staff commented most fre- quently on the inadequacy of efforts to plan for curriculum improvement and implementation. He suggested the following procedure be adopted in the 1978-79 academic year and a curriculum advisory committee, or a rep- resentative advisory committee be established to set improvement prior- ities for the following budget year. a. to examine each spring each existing data from standardized testing and evaluations of curriculum. b. to develop information as necessary by surveys of students, tea- chers, parents, and by questionnaires, and other evaluation pro- cedures. c. to interview the system's program managers and department heads. d. to seek information from outside the system with respect to cur- rent developments and trends. e. to convert this information into recommendations to the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in time for presentation to the Superintendent for consideration and possible inclusion in budget preparation for the next year. In addition he noted that the committee should observe the follow- ing guidelines: - At the elementary level major reconsideration of curriculum should occur in one area at a time. - Suggestions from teachers for improvements should be obtained regularly. - Major curriculum changes should be piloted before system-wide adoption. - Staff should have sufficient time to learn the curricula. - Curriculum to be adopted system-wide should be supported by plans for in-service and provision for materials. Inthe area of mandated curriculum he suggested that translation of curriculum to classroom activities must be shared between staff who design curriculum for system-wide use and classroom teachers. He noted that at present there appeared to be no clear procedure by which the major curricula of the system are recommended to the Superintendent for acceptance by the school committee. He suggested that this be a prior- ity item. On the topic, departure from the established curriculum, he noted that flexibility should exist if the curricula were to remain responsive. He noted the difficulty in specifying conditions under which significant modification of curriculum could occur. He said significant modifica- tions are not of the order which must be made regularly by teachers to Page 71 May 23, 1978 respond to theirs and their students' needs and interests. He noted that a process had been suggested in the design that would provide some assurance that the teachers would be supported in their attempts to im- prove instruction via suggested replacement of content or introduction of untested methodologies. He said the results of the individual teacher work could be available to the entire system to disseminate information on suggested modification. He said that some staff had expressed concern during the curricula design discussion that the paper failed to deal with the school's respon- sibility to address affective education. He added his paper did not ad- dress that and perhaps the paper could be classified as somewhat conserv- ative in nature. However, he noted that the system's initial priority should be to improve the management of those instructional programs which it can provide with reasonable success. The second priority would be whether or not Lexington would have a formal curriculum in values or eth- ical development. He recommended that before Lexington developed a de- liberate instructional program in affective areas it needed to assess some of the present practices of the school system which taught or failed to teach learnings offered through a more formal program. As a summary he presented the school committee with the status of curriculum development for 1978. At this point the members of the school committee asked several questions. Mrs. Gaudet asked what happened when curriculum development was finished and materials were given to the class- room teacher. Mr. Pierson responded that it depended upon the area due to summer workshops and in-service education. Sometimes some materials were not available to teachers, others are incomplete and this led to problems. He felt that this process had to be rectified. The superintendent noted that Lexington had to catch up and finish some of its commitments to curricula development in some areas. He recommended Lexington enter into a cyclic program which meant that new materials would be piloted before being given to all staff to implement. also materials would be made available for review in June of the preced- ing year of implementation. He noted that Lexington would cease its prior operation of introducing several areas of new programs in September when materials were not complete until late in July or August. Mr. Michelman said he was interested in the segment of the paper which commented on departure from the curricula. He asked Mr. Pierson what his sense was when the line was crossed from ordinary discretion on the part of the teacher to major departure from the curricula. Mr. Pierson responded that it depended on the area of the curriculum. He said the teacher's main responsibility was to use his talent in imple- menting the curriculum and all students were expected to be exposed to certain areas of the curriculum. If a teacher or teachers departed from accepted curricula there should be some authority to approve. He said otherwise there would be gaps in the development of a student's program. The superintendent said teachers should not be given the option of choos- ing not to teach certain topics or concepts on their own, but there should be equal access to exposure of topics unless it were approved by an author- ity and recorded so that it would be picked up in later months or years by the teacher or teachers. Mr. Hoffman said his impression was that the curricula in Lexington hadn' t been all that structured, and thus the suggestions that Mr. Pierson had put forth seemed to be sound ideas. Page 72 May 23, 1978 Mr. Michelman complimented Mr. Pierson and Dr. Lawson for the pro- cess used with faculty and asked if any of the proposed solutions in the summary had been put forward in a way to have staff respond to them. Mr. Pierson responded that only to some degree had staff responded and the summary could be presented to staff for reactions. Dr. Lawson added it would be appropriate now to have staff react to the solutions prior to any recommendations by him. He said he had promised that nothing would be implemented without the staff's final input. Mr. Hoffman ad- ded that he felt the primary emphasis might be assessing which curricu- lum needed improvements, and include the four areas noted in Mr. Pier- son's paper. He suggested in addition an evaluation of students per- formance relative to Lexington Curriculum be included because standard- ized testing did not reflect a judgment of Lexington's curriculum. Mr. Pierson and Dr. Lawson agreed. Mr. Hoffman said that the teacher eval- uation instrument needed strengthening also, and perhaps there should be more assessment of the performance of students in the staff evalua- tion. Mr. Hoffman added that he applauded the process undertaken by Dr. Lawson and Mr. Pierson and supported the comments concerning af- fective education. Mr. Brown said that the points discussed were con- sistent with concerns of the school committee and indicated his sup- port. Mrs. Swanson made commendations to Mr. Pierson for his remarks, and felt that the administration had taken great strides to make cur- riculum management a reality. Dr. Lawson read a memo to the school committee members as a re- PARKER SCHOOL sponse to the comments of a Parker School parent at the school commit- LETTER tee meeting of April 25, 1978. The following communication was read: (TRANSFERS) (See page 72A and 72B) After the superintendent read the memorandum he suggested that the school committee define "prudent margin" before the next school closing develops. Mr. Michelman noted that the Parker parents had questioned how a "prudent margin" could have existed if there was no room at Estabrook School to transfer students. He said that in his mind it had been the 17th classroom that would have provided some margin, and asked Dr. Law- son if any thought had been given to opening a 17th classroom to accom- modate transfer requests. The superintendent noted that the issue had been discussed by Mr. Terris and him during public meetings. The capacity of Estabrook was determined to be 440 according to guidelines, and a projected enrollment of 431 at the time of the school closing analysis meant all transfers could not be honored since there was no way of knowing what would happen to the enrollment by September. He said that Mr. Terris and he felt un- comfortable at that time in taking more transfers which would place the school near capacity. Mr. Terris said he had several possibilities for room assignment if the enrollment did exceed capacity. He reiterated his options stated during the school analysis discussions. Mr. Hoffman said he felt the administration had implemented the spirit of the school committee vote. He noted that some special consid- eration had been given to the parents and students and that they had been treated fairly. He added that he supported the content of the memorandum with one exception. He said the comment about "prudent margin" should be deleted since it was a part of the official policy voted unanimously by the school committee and was not accurate as stated. Page 72A Lexington Public Schools May 23, 1978 Lexington, Massachusetts May 19, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: School Committee Members At the School Committee meeting of April 25, 1978, Jeffrey Kalil of 40 Preston Road, read a letter from some members of the Parker School PTA Board, and several Parker parents to formally protest the current transfer policy of the Lexington Public Schools. At this time, we would like to clarify and/or correct statements contained in the communication. On January 13, 1978, the School Committee voted to endorse the superin- tendent's recommendation to proceed with the closing of Parker School on Sep- tember, 1978, and requested that the administration do everything within its power to accommodate the requested transfers from parents in the smaller of the two Parker districts. Since that vote, eight meetings, each approximately two hours in length, have beendevoted to the transition of students from Parker to ensure the di- rection set by the School Committee was carried out with efficiency and sensi- tivity to the needs of students of the sending and receiving schools, and the system. Mssrs. Foley, Lombard, Goodridge, Terris, Como, Barnes, and Lawson have spent many hours to guarantee that transfer requests would receive the utmost accommodation. It has also been stated in the letter that the School Committee and ad- ministration failed to define Estabrook's true capacity or class sizes , de- termine the number of classrooms that would be used or define prudent margin. When the school closing report was being developed by Planning and Research Division, principals were asked through a formal questionnaire to indicate the utilization of rooms. The capacities of buildings were then determined in con- cert with principals. The capacity of Estabrook was defined as 440, and is so indicated in the report. Mr. Terris further indicated, and has stated public- ly, that he would use sixteen classrooms (Grades 1-6) with a potential seven- teenth classroom being utilized if .the need arises due to unexpected enrollees. When the school closing report concerning Parker School was presented, Mr. Spiris, Dr. Goodridge, and Mr. Terris reviewed illustrative estimates of stu- dent assignments for 1978-79 which was required as part of the School Commit- tee's school closing policy. The class sizes estimates on pages 18, 18A of the report indicate a range of class sizes from eighteen to twenty-five at Estabrook for next year which was based on a projected enrollment of 421 at that time. The estimates are also within the class size planning figure of twenty-six established as a School Committee guideline. The concept of prudent margin was introduced by a School Committee mem- ber, who had some concern for possible enrollment variations. Page 72B May 23, 1978 Requests for transfers from Bridge to Estabrook for twenty-one students have been received and processed. Principals have interviewed parents and sub- mitted recommendations to the superintendent for approval or disapproval. Prior to May 1, the superintendent had approved eight requests , seven to Estabrook, one to Fiske. The remaining requests were denied due to lack of space at spe- cific grade levels at that time. To further implement the School Committee's request for special consideration for these transfers the superintendent in- vited for interviews parents of those rejected. No other assurance was made ex- cept that all transfers would be considered under the School Committee policy, and would reflect the direction of the School Committee vote of January 13. It also must be made clear that at no time did the superintendent state that all student transfer requests were approved. Since June, 1976, there have been three denials of transfer. A few months ago, it was agreed that we would develop a new set of projec- tions based upon the latest information as of May 1, 1978. This is the first time Lexington has done this and we feel it too, supports the wishes of the School Committee to accommodate as many transfer requests as possible. On May 1, a new set of projections were received. The figures indicated that there was additional space at some grade levels, and we can now accommodate six more of the remaining thirteen requests on record as of May 1, 1978, and be con- sistent with all School Committee guidelines on class sizes and the capacity of Estabrook School. We are pleased that we can accommodate these requests, and we will continue to monitor enrollment conditions as we normally do in the operation of the schools in order to accommodate any transfer requests within the system. We hope this statement will clarify, correct, and possibly provide complete understanding of the matter as all of us seek to provide the best possible edu- cational experiences and settings for all students of Lexin�gtoon;a' / m 1 '1— C �4 Johp, H. Lawson William C. Terris Su tint--dent of Schools Principal, Estabrook School AOgt Paul L. Foley Caring. Como Principal, Parker School Princi.al, Fiske School Paul F. Lombard 'ichard H. Bar -s Principal, Munroe School 7 Director Planning an. Research ,% - %t —=u_.-C aster E. Goodridge;Jr' — Principal, Bridge School d Page 73 May 23, 1978 In summary Dr. Lawson said that the administration would monitor the enrollment of Estabrook School and would consider additional trans- fers according to the vote and policy of the school committee if the enrollment indicated space would be available. Mr. Barnes, with the assistance of Mr. Horton, Principal of the PADDOCK LANE Bowman School reviewed the case of school bus transportation for sev- TRANSPORTATION eral students from the Paddock Lane area. Last fall the discovery of an error in measurement disqualified several students from bus transportation, since they lived under the mile limitation. Mr. Barnes noted that a request to the Traffic Safety Committee to render a judgment as to the safety conditions of the area had been returned with no recommendation. Parents in the area claim that the safety merited an exception to the policy by the school com- mittee. Mr. Horton agreed to remeasure the distance but he or Mr. Barnes did not have the experience to judge the safety aspects. The members of the committee expressed their desire for some expert advice regarding the safety conditions. At this point it was: MOVED: that the chairman be requested to discuss with the Board of Selectmen the School Committee's need for assistance from the agency of the town government concerned with Traffic Safety, the Traffic Safety Committee, and report back to the School Committee at a future date. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES VOTED: to approve the following professional personnel changes as listed (PROFESSIONAL) on Page 90. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) Change in Assignment Resignation Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES (CLASSIFIED) VOTED: to approve the following classified personnel changes as listed on Page 91. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Resignation • Retirement Page 74 May 23, 1978 Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools it was TITLE I SUMMER READING STAFF VOTED: to accept the following changes in the Title I Summer Reading Program staff. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) Replacement for Laurie Como Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS (BAKERY), VOTED: that the Lexington Public Schools accept the bids for bakery products with companies as follows: (Michelman, Swanson, Unani- mous) Item Mello' s Ward Bread 1. Pullman Sand. 24 oz.28 sl. .48 2. French - 16 oz. .33 3. Italian - 14 Oz.14" x 52" .32 4. Raisin - 16 oz. 14 sl. .72 Rolls 5. Hamburg - 18 oz.4"diam. .49 6. Frankfort - 18 oz.5" long .49 7. Pan - 14 oz. .42 8. Subs - 24 oz.6"long .84 9. N.Y. Hard - 13 oz. .48 10. Bulkie - 26 oz. .78 11. Small Ro11-14 oz.4"long .54 12. Eng.Muffin - 24 oz.32"xlk" .64 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS (ICE CREAM) VOTED: that the Lexington Public Schools purchase ice cream for the Food Services Program from Paul' s Distributors, based on their low bid meeting specifications. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS (MILK) VOTED: that the Lexington Public Schools award a contract for supplying milk and other dairy products to Martines Brothers (Blue Ribbon Dairy) as the low bidder meeting specifications. Dr. Lawson noted that the Food Services Director, Dorothy Griffin, FOOD SERVICES would retire at the end of the school year. After review of the sys-. SUPERVISOR tem's needs he recommended the following: 1. That the position Director/Coordinator of Food Services be abolished effective June 30, 1978. 2. That the position of Supervisor of the Food Service Program be established effective July 1, 1978. 3. That the job description for the position of Supervisor of the School Food Service Program dated May 17, 1978 be approved. Page May 23, 1978 4. That an immediate search begin for a suitable candidate with FOOD SERVICES salary and other benefits as indicated on the Vacancy Notice SUPERVISOR(CONT.) dated May 17, 1978. 5. That the funding of this position be transferred to the Food Service Program with the understanding that if, at the end of the 1978-79 school year, that this places the Food Service Pro- gram in a difficult financial position that the superintendent be permitted to return to the school committee with a request for transfer of funds as this position has been included in the 1178-79 Personal Services Budget. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept the recommendation as listed by the superintendent. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) The role description of and notice of vacancy were reviewed by the committee. Lw changes were recommended by the school committee to Mr. Maclnnes. The report of CTBS Scores was deferred to a future meeting. CTBS SCORES Mrs. Mabyn Martin, Administrator of Special Needs, reviewed the SPECIAL ED STUDY results of the follow-up contacts with parents of students in programs in substantially separate classrooms, as a result of the Special Needs Survey taken in October, 1977. After a brief discussion the committee expressed its compliments to Mrs. Martin for the informational analysis and services she provided to the schools. Dr. Lawson presented the school committee with evaluation reports SECONDARY PARENT of secondary school conferences. He noted that the conferences had CONFERENCES been received most positively by staff and parents. He added that he knew of only two other school systems in the country who conducted for- mal parent-teacher conferences at the secondary level. He said secon- dary school principals had recommended that the program continue. He approved their recommendation. The school committee complimented the administration and staff of the secondary schools for the program of conferences and expressed its hope that the program would prove successful next year. Information on the 1975-76 claim of expenditures made by the school SPECIAL NEEDS department and town in behalf of the schools was presented to the com- AUDIT REPORT mittee. It was noted that the state auditor disallowed one item deal- 1975-1976 ing with library services. Mr. Maclnnes said he had been in contact with Mr. Hilton, Director of the Town Library, and he will provide documentation to support the claim of the town/schools. Mr. Maclnnes and the superintendent said they would keep the committee informed of the matter. Page 76 May 23, 1978 The superintendent said he and Mr. Michelman had attended the EDCO ANNUAL Education Collaborative of Greater Boston (EDCO) annual conference at CONFERENCE which time Mr. Michelman had been elected chairman. The committee ex- tended its congratulations to Mr. Michelman on his election to head one of the country's largest and most successful collaboratives. After a brief discussion of the yearbooks purchased yearly for the YEARBOOKS school committee it was VOTED: not to purchase 5 yearbooks for the school committee in the future. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) It was ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION VOTED: to convene in executive session at 10:32 p.m. to discuss a matter of collective bargaining strategy and the character and reputation of one or more individuals. The chairman announced that the com- mittee would not come out of executive session. (Michelman, yes; Hoffman, yes; Swanson, yes; Gaudet, yes, Brown, yes) Respectfully submitt4, i // Richard H. Barnes /k / Recording Secretary