The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978-06-26-SC-min Page 84 June 26, 1978 A regular meeting of the Lexington School Committee was held at the Clarke Junior High School, Monday, June 26, 1978, at 8:00 p.m. Those in attendance were Brown, Swanson, Michelman, Hoffman, Gaudet and stu- dent representative Mende. Also present were Lawson, Spiris, Pierson, Maclnnes, Monderer and Barnes. Robert Lague, President of the L.E.A., expressed concern regarding PUBLIC remarks made by a school committee member at the previous school commit- PARTICIPATION tee meeting during a discussion of tenure and non-tenure staffings. He said the inference that "new blood" or new staff meant more innovation and new ideas and older staff meant less was something to which he took exception. He also noted that the discussion could be disturbing to staff and had a direct influence on morale. Mr. Lewis Clapp, 21 Mason Street, spoke in favor of the recommenda- tion to hire a Teaching Specialist-Computers in Instruction in the re- organization of the Computer Services Division. He said it was appro- priate for Lexington to address a new focus in curriculum in this area, and on behalf of several parents wished to encourage the school commit- tee to approve the recommendation. Jack Monderer, Director of Pupil Personnel Services introduced the GUIDANCE STUDY Guidance Report. He said the format was divided into two sections: the first section contained definitions and goals of guidance programs by level; the second section contained results from the surveys of parents, students and staff. He added that the final section on recommendations would be compiled after the survey results were reviewed by his division. Highlights of the survey findings reported were: The results from the three publics at the elementary level were ex- ceedingly positive. Seventy-seven percent of the parents using the ser- vice were "very much" or "a lot" satisfied with the counselor's help. Eighty-one percent said they would be "very much" or "a lot" more com- fortable contacting the counselor again if they felt they needed help. Teachers and students also found the elementary counselor helpful. Nine- ty-four teachers thought that counselors were "very much' or "a lot" a necessary part of the school team. Students felt counselors were in- terested in them and listened to them, understood them and were helpful. At the junior high school level, parents who had seen counselors found them quickly accessible. They felt the counselors understood their child's problems or their own concerns or problems, could be trusted with confidences, and tried to be helpful. Parents were satis- fied with counselor attempts to facilitate communications between tea- chers and parents and with information about the student provided by counselors. However, a substantial number felt they were not made suf- ficiently aware of the services offered by the counseling program. Par- ents were more satisfied with counselors help to students in their tran- sition to junior high school, than with their transition to the high school. Most parents found counselors helpful in assisting to find new ways of thinking about, or handling their problems, and a substantial number would consider talking to the counselor about future "problems, concerns, or requests." Page 85 June 26, 1978 Junior high school teachers found counselors a necessary part of the school. They found them very available to discuss pupils' problems, wel- coming to teachers who felt free to share their concerns. They were very satisfied with counselor's participation in conferences regarding students and their awareness of student needs. Teachers felt their ideas and point of view understood, and their referrals followed up by counselors. A very good collaborative relationship between teachers and counselors seems apparent from the reactions above, and teachers' satisfaction with hav- ing non-confidential information shared, with helpfulness in the core evaluation process, and their satisfaction with consultation. The poorest ratings by junior high school teachers which will deserve special attention and study include: Sharing and interpreting test data Informing new teachers about available counselor services Consultations about study skills Helpfulness to teachers with classroom management Evaluating impact of curricula on students Junior high students were generally seen soon after they requested to be seen (within two days). Most students felt they could be seen quickly in an emergency. Students who saw counselors most often (6 or more times), or saw them about conflicts, family and social problems - found counselors more understanding, trustworthy with confidence, and helpful than those stu- dents with fewer contacts, or students who saw counselors about less per- sonal issues. He added that questionnaires had been sent to the seniors who grad- uated during the past week to get their reactions to the program and would be presented when the high school report was given next year. He noted that the high school would be the main focus of guidance and he would emphasize retrieval of information from parents, students and tea- chers. Mrs. Swanson began the question and comment period. She noted her disappointment with the small number of parents that had responded to the survey and questioned why there was such a small response. Dr. Monderer replied that he felt the number who responded for a mailed sur- vey was not unusual. Mr. Hoffman interjected that the number who respond- ed was directly dependent upon the dialogue and understanding of those polled, and felt that a large segment of the people contacted didn't know what was being talked about or were unaware of the program. Survey tak- ers should not proceed on the assumption that the parent did know. He also voiced his concern with the low number of parents who responded (27%) and the number of teachers (517.) who responded. He said he was mainly concerned with how the survey had been presented and felt that the responses of parents did not suggest the reflections and reviews of the total population because some had contact and some had not. Mr. Hoffman added that there were other questions that should be asked such as, how the percent of parents who indicated contact compare with counselor had contacted. Dr. Monderer replied the staff had yet to ex- amine the results in detail. Page 86 June 26, 1978 Mrs. Gaudet said the questionnaire seemed to be designed to dis- courage comments from those who had no counselor contact. She felt there should have been questions designed for those who had no counselor con- tact. Dr. Monderer agreed that this idea should be considered in any future survey. Mrs. Swanson voiced agreement with Mr. Hoffman's comment and ex- pressed her concern about how the material had been presented to teach- ers which probably influenced the number of respondents. Dr. Monderer replied that the principals were given instructions via a memo and there had been a number of teachers who were concerned with the survey for eth- ical reasons. Some teachers felt they could not fill out the question- naire because it might be used as an evaluation of a person not a pro- gram. This was reflected in the low response. Mr. Hoffman stated that the staff reaction was a clear indication of a bias in the survey--that those who had critical responses never did give them, obviously. Mr. Michelman said he had the same initial reaction about the possibility of built-in bias. He felt that in some cases persons would not have re- sponded on the basis of principle, even though they were favorable to the program. He cautioned that one could not infer from the refusal to respond, if it had been made, would have been critical. Mrs. Gaudet said that due to the concerns expressed she doubted the validity of the survey. Dr. Lawson said that the questionnaire had been sent out by the program manager as a first time effort and many things had been learned in the process such as how to construct and disseminate a survey. Dr. Monderer agreed and felt that there were other ways in which returns could have been increased in number, another mailing, telephone calls, etc. , but after discussion with his staff the decision was not to make any increased efforts. Mr. Hoffman said it was critical that in all surveys one needed to be aware of potential biases. He stated that one needed to deal with such bias and that the potential bias in the survey was the lack of awareness on the part of those being surveyed. Mr. Michelman said that he felt that the school committee had received a wealth of information which would provide a springboard for discussion. He noted that in his review of the elementary goals and functions of counselors a question arose. Did elementary counseling consultants see themselves as staff persons who developed programs de- signed for all students in the school? Dr. Monderer responded that counselors probably felt they had general impact on the entire school population. At this point Mrs. Freyda Siegel, counseling consultant at Fiske School; and Dr. John Friedman, counseling consultant at Franklin School; reviewed their roles. After the presentation by the counselors, Mrs. Gaudet said that dur- ing the recent school committee campaign the most frequent concern voiced was with the guidance program. Parents seemed unaware of services if they had no contact and did not know how or whom to contact if service was needed. Mr. Hoffman said that Mr. Friedman described his role sim- ilar to what he did 70% of the time. He then asked the counselor; why does one call ones self a counseling consultant? Why not something else since there seemed to be great overlap in roles described. What are the unique reasons for being called a counseling consultant? Mr. Friedman responded that he brought a specific orientation and specialization in the field of psychology and human behavior to the school and had a spe- cific role as counseling consultant. Mr. Hoffman then asked if he felt Page 87 June 26, 1980 that his specialized training equipped him to tell students what they ought to do, or to help themselves do what they ought to do. Mr. Friedman responded, he felt his role was to make people stronger and to assist them to make their own decisions. Mr. Michelman said another item in the role that he reviewed stimu- lated another question: "Didn' t the classroom teacher have to bear the major burden of developing good study habits and skills, or was it really a counselor's job to do this, and was there a whole lot a counselor could do if a teacher couldn' t? Dr. Monderer responded, it was the major job of the teachers but counselors did assist in many cases, and sometimes a number of problems did not get to teachers. Mrs. Vivian Parker and Mrs. Sperber, counselors at the junior high school level, commented that counselors service students in a variety of ways with a variety of prob- lems such as study skills problems. Mrs. Swanson asked if guidance counselors worked with all teachers to improve the self-image of students through a specific plan or pro- gram. Mrs. Marie Harleston at the Estabrook School said there was no specific plan but she tried to accommodate such needs on a one-to-one basis rather than a general program. Mrs. Parker, counselor at Diamond said teams at Diamond Junior High had tried to focus on this item. Paul Mende, student representative to the School Committee comment- ed that his experience at Diamond would indicate a need to have more in- formation provided for everyone to know what the counselors did and how to reach them. He felt counselors should reach out more. Mr. Brown, on behalf of the committee, thanked Dr. Monderer and the Pupil Services Department for the presentation and commented that it was a good start and the discussion process would continue in the Fall. Dr. Lawson introduced the Instructional Grouping Report. He noted INSTRUCTIONAL that the school committee had established four goals for the 1977-78 GROUPING REPORT year: 1) Develop a School Closing Policy, 2) Develop a Computerized Pro- gram Accounting and Budget System, 3)Conduct an Instructional Grouping Study, and 4) Reorganize Pupil Services. With the completion of the Instructional Grouping Practices, these goals had been accomplished. He stated that no recommendations accompanied the report. Recommend- ations would be made after staff reviewed the report. Dr. Pierson presented the study. He noted that the study of In- structional Grouping Practices focused on the junior high schools. The study revealed that a majority of parents and teachers saw a need for considerable improvement in the present system although most supported the continued use of grouping in some form. He added that the year-long study had been coordinated by Stephen Tracy, Administrative Intern and himself. The study examined attitudes of parents, teachers and students, re- viewed current research, described the phasing system in each junior high school, described differences in curriculum and teaching technique among phases and concluded effects of grouping practices. Page 88 June 26, 1978 At this point, Mr. Tracy thanked the many persons who participated in the study: students, teachers, parents, the PTA' s, also the League of Women Voters and the Citizens Committee for the Lexington Public Schools who conducted community meetings to discuss the grouping study. Mr. Pierson noted that one of the major findings of the report was that students of relative equal ability often ended up in different phases. Teachers indicated that each of the ability groups included a broad range of abilities, and there was considerable overlap among phases. He explained that part of the problem was due to the fact that students were recommended for different phases by sixth grade teachers who had various degrees of knowledge about the junior high school program and would apply various standards for placement. Scheduling requirements, class size limitations, parent requests, also influenced placement. He said that most students felt that there were real differences among stu- dents in different phases, and that the high phase pupils were more in- telligent than the middle phase pupils, etc. Teacher reports and test scores indicated that this was not often the case . Additional informa- tion illustrated that 25% of the students reported that most of their friends were in similar phases and almost a fifth of the students who responded used uncomplimentary labels to describe pupils in lower phases. The study found that almost all seventh graders remain in their original phases throughout the first year and a large number of students change groups between years, a majority of which resulted from parental requests, or, in some cases, scheduling complications. Dr. Pierson said in general, the present grouping system seemed to serve students in high- er phases more effectively than those in the lower phases, and teachers and parents felt that phasing did more to promote academic achievement and positive social and emotional development among students of higher ability than those below average. He noted that parents of students in higher phases were generally more pleased with their children's place- ment than those in the lower phase. Students in higher phases tend to be assigned more homework by teachers and get higher grades than those in the lower phases. In conclusion, he stated that a review of the re- search on ability grouping found no clear support for any particular grouping plan. Factors such as competence of teachers, quality of cur- riculum, nature of student population, etc. , were more important than grouping in promoting student achievement growth. He added that each school system should design a grouping pattern to support his own in- structional program rather than install a system based on the results of a research project in some other town. He said the following conclu- sions of the study would not be reviewed by staff who could state agree- ment or disagreement with each section. The staff reactions would then be used as a factor in specific recommendations to the school committee. (See next page for conclusions) Mr. Michelman applauded the feedback process and asked if copies of the study could be made available for interested parties. Dr. Pier- son said the dissemination process would include department heads, jun- ior high school teachers, parents, community bodies and other formal groups. He hoped copies would be available late in July. He said the junior high schools would also organize meetings with parents in the fall. Page 88A V. CONCLUSIONS 1. Research (Part III) a. Research reviewed does not consistently support any particular grouping practice. The impact of grouping is difficult to isolate from the effect of other such variables as curriculum, methodology, class size, teacher effectiveness. Consequently, it would appear that patterns of instructional grouping should be determined by instructional and institutional objectives. Certainly it would not be appropriate to allow the instructional program to be determined or controlled by whatever grouping patterns happen to exist. 2. General appraisal of instructional grouping practices in the junior highs (IV-1, 2,3) a. It appears that, while a majority of parents, students and teachers support the grouping of students by some definition of ability, a majority of parents and teachers would support adjustments to improve the present system. b. In spite of its stated intention of distinguishing among academic abilities to provide more efficient instruction, the practice of phasing does not generate particularly homogeneous groups. c. Sixth grade teachers, who are responsible for initial placement decisions, have little confidence in the procedures used to recommend students for seventh grade phases. 3. Adjustment of phase placement (IV-4) Though some changes occur at the end of 7th and 8th grades, it appears that the flexibility of the phasing process is inhibited by extraneous factors such as class size and the need for multiple course changes to accommodate one phase change. 4. Instructional differences among phases (IV-5) The response to the junior high school faculty questionnaire clearly indicates that the math curriculum is substantially different in the different phases and that the science curriculum is not. There is some degree of disagreement within the other academic departments, with a majority of English and social studies teachers stating that students in different phases do not follow different curricula and a majority of foreign language teachers stating that they do. Higher phases use more challenging textbooks in math, English and social studies, and higher phases use a greater variety of supplemental materials in most science, social studies ond' foreign language classes. Teachers report that they are more likely to give lectures and assign research papers in higher phases, and more likely to conduct drill and recitation in lower phases. Finally, teachers tend to assign more homework to students in the higher phases. Page 88B 5. Phasing and achievement (IV-6) Both opinions of parents and teachers and students' grades suggest that phasing is more. effective at promoting higher levels of achievement, as measured by grades, at the higher ability levels than it is at lower ability levels. 6. Phasing and social/emotional development (IV-7) Though parents and teachers feel that phasing promotes positive social and emotional development among higher phased students, there is evidence that phasing contributes to stereotyping, that phasing controls friendship patterns for many students, and that a student's phase place- ment influences his assessment of himself as a student. In addition, both parents and teachers feel less confident about the impact of phasing on lower-phase students. 7. Communication with parents (IV-8) , Information which parents receive concerning phasing varies according to its scute, though most parents receive their initial orientation from staff not directly involved with the junior high schools. The inevitable inconsistencies in such a system are being communicated to parents, a sizeable"minority of whom do not feel adequately informed. 8. Faculty and parental recommendations (IV-9) Faculty and parents differ as to the need for change and the directions of these- changes. Whereas 28% of the junior high faculty favor no change, only 16% of the parents took a similar position. Except in the case of math, a majority of parents would support some grouping to avoid extreme differences, as opposed to grouping three or more ability levels. Faculty opinion was rather evenly divided between those who favored no change, those who favored minor change toward greater heterogeneity, and those who favored minor change toward greater homogeneity. Both faculty and parents agreed that grouping practices could vary according to the subject area. Page 89 June 26, 1978 Mrs. Gaudet asked Dr. Pierson if he was going to follow up on the issue of student placements that were pointed out in the report. He responded that he hoped the junior high personnel would ask that ques- tion, and do something about it. Mrs. Swanson said that there seemed to be a variance in the judgment in phasing placement. She said that staff in a particular school considered level three to be average when another school or individual considered four to be average. She felt the elementary school program also needed review, articulation, etc. In addition she noted that one junior high did not put phase notices on the cards so parents could be informed. Dr. Pierson responded that parents were informed at the end of the year at that particular school and also the sixth grade teacher would inform the parent at a confer- ence what the placement would be. Dr. Lawson said the school system needed to address the issue of what phasing did to special needs students. He said if students were only placed in lower groups it would seem that the concept of mainstream- ing was defeated. The Committee thanked Dr. Pierson and Mr. Tracy and agreed that the study would require further discussion in the fall. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services June 9, 1978 Classified Payroll #26-C $ 74,601.08 June 16, 1978 Professional Payroll #26 1,989,679.75 Expenses June 16, 1978 Bill Schedules #192 2,528.83 June 16, 1978 #193 460.07 June 16, 1978 #194 31,086.46 June 16, 1978 #195 21,409.84 June 16, 1978 #196 263.75 June 23, 1978 #197 25,073.43 June 23, 1978 #198 5,145.68 June 23, 1978 #199 1,068.58 June 23, 1978 #200 5,934.98 June 23, 1978 #201 3,050.00 Out-of-State Travel June 16, 1978 Bill Schedules #21 408.00 June 23, 1978 #22 280.00 Athletics June 16, 1978 Bill Schedules #35 861.12 June 23, 1978 #36 2,505.71 June 16, 1978 Payrolls #20 1,227.50 June 2, 1978 #19 1,786.32 Page 90 June 26, 1978 Vocational Education June 16, 1978 Tuition #22 $ 49.50 June 23, 1978 #23 37.50 SPECIAL PROGRAMS Non-Lexington Funds Driver Education-Adult Education June 16, 1978 Professional Payroll 1,194.26 June 23, 1978 Bill Schedule #12 305.20 METCO Program June 9, 1978 Classified Payroll 1,567.05 June 16, 1978 Professional Payroll 16,670.82 June 23, 1978 Bill Schedule #17 572.51 PL 94-142 Transition to Employment June 9, 1978 Classified Payroll 458.22 June 16, 1978 Professional Payroll 3,019.20 Title I PL 89-313 Special Education June 16, 1978 Professional Payroll 3,092.20 ESEA Library June 23, 1978 Bill Schedule #10 10.40 Bus Ticket Account June 16, 1978 Bill Schedule #8 1,160.50 Pupil-School Material Recovery June 23, 1978 Bill Schedule #10 135.20 Dr. Lawson noted that at the last school committee the reorganize- TEACHING tion of computer services was presented. Some school committee members SPECIALISTS had raised the question regarding the role of teacher specialist--com- COMPUTERS IN puter in instruction and the report presented was in response to those EDUCATION students. He added that the addition of .3 full time equivalent person together with the total reorganization effort would provide a half-time person to assess the current status of the program, pupil accessibility, organization and prepare recommendations for the long range goals for computers in the instructional programs. Dr. Lawson said recommenda- tions would be presented to the school committee when they were com- pleted. He stated that the person would be a member of an academic de- partment, be expected to teach approximately 50%, and be responsible to the department head or program manager for teaching and computer activi- ties that related to the department. In addition, the person would re- port to the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction for K-12 activities relating to the computer in instruction. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept the additional .3 full time equivalent person as out- lined in the report on Page 91. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was NEW PERSONNEL VOTED: to accept the following new personnel. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) Page 91 TEACHING SPECIALIST - COMPUTERS IN INSTRUCTION In the decade preceding 1975, Lexington's growth in the use of computers in education was related to the small computer (PDP 8) . The size and capaci- ty restricted planning and extensive applications for instructional uses. The funding of Project LEADS provided the Lexington Public Schools with the use of a large computer (PDP 11/40) . Lexington's machine capability was sharp- ly increased. However, LEADS was commissioned to develop an information sys- tem designed to improve educational decision making. As a result, the focus on instruction was minimized. Actual development of computers in instruction was left to highly moti- vated . parents . mathematics specialists . some secondary teachers On the basis of a loaned terminal hooked up to the large computer some instructional programs (mathematics , logic, etc ,) had been written for stu- dents. (See attachment). In other elementary schools students had been trans- ported to the computer center at the High School for instruction. . The poten- tial of the new computer was immediately recognized and a renewed effort was organized to increase the number of terminals available to all elementary school students (see chart) . Simul aneously, a Source Book of Computer Programs for Learning and Achiev- ment was developed (attached) . This program has been expanding continuously. Only three elementary schools (Adams , Harrington and Munroe) do not have termin- als;some have two. Adams and Harrington are actively seeking terminals. The program is currently being staffed or taught by voluntary help organized by the parents with assistance of the school staff. Location of Terminals by Level (Small Computer) (Large Computer) Instr. Admin. Location PDP/8 PDP/li. Services Services El 10a x x JH 6 r. LH 10 4b To be Assigned 4 PETS (Table-Portable Computer) a - 8 donated terminals 2 LEADS terminals b - 1 donated terminal This approach has allowed many Lexington students to experience the ad- vantages of learning via computer. Most of our teaching staff, however, have yet to have similar experiences. With many of the elementary students now having had more than one year of computer learning experiences the Junior High program is ill equipped to service these students when they arrive. The addition of a .3 FTE together with the total reorganization effort would provide a half time person to: . assess the current status of the program including pupil accessibility. . assist staff in relating the current computer programs to curriculum. . improve the organization of what is extant. . prepare recommendations on the long range goals and immediate direction of computers in instructional programs. Recommendations will be pre- sented to the School Committee when they are completed. This person will be a member of an academic department. In this capacity, he or she will be expected to teach approximately one-half time and will be responsible to the department head or program manager for his teaching and com- puter activities that relate to the department. He or she will report to the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for K-12 activities related to the use of the computer in instruction. Submitted by R. H. Barnes , Director of Planning and Research F. DiGiammarino, Coordinator of Planning d Page 92 June 26, 1978 Name Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PAYMENT OF SPECIAL CLASS VOTED: that payment of the special class stipends be awarded to the STIPENDS '77-'78 following staff in the amount of $704. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) (See attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO ATHLETIC VOTED: to transfer $7300 from Personal Services to the Athletic budget. BUDGET Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was THREE YEAR CONTRACT VOTED: to award J. Geoffrey Pierson a three year contract beginning DR. PIERSON July 1, 1978, and extending to June 30, 1981. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) Members of the committee expressed pleasure with the contract and admiration for the accomplishments of Dr. Pierson since his arrival in Lexington. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES (CLASSIFIED) VOTED: to accept the personnel changes-classified (See attached) (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was RE-ELECTION OF STAFF VOTED: to re-elect the following staff for the school year 1978-79 at the step and level indicated. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) (See attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SETTING OF SALARIES VOTED: to set salaries of the personnel at the level, step and salary indicated for the 1978-79 school year. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) (See attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was BIDS: PHYSICAL ED & VOTED: that orders be placed with. the following companies in the ap- ATHLETIC SUPPLIES proximate totals as indicated based on their low bids meeting specifications and that Item 6, 102, 179, 180, 184 and 185 be rejected as not being in the best interest of the Town of Lex- ington. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) Page 93 June 26, 1978 Company Amount A.A. Sports $1,290.47 Arrow Sports, Ltd. 573.74 W.H. Brine Co. 122.90 Bucko's Sporting Goods 1,234.37 J. L. Hammett Company 80.14 Holovak & Coughlin Sport. Gds. 1,689.95 House of Sports, Inc. 1,998.77 Marciano-Shaw 241.54 Medford Sqr. Sport. Gds. 1,592.40 Nissen Corp. 239.68 Sidney Musinsky 234.80 Safari Fitness Equipment 38.70 Saunders Archery 4.00 Scholastic Sports Service,Inc. 551.70 Snitz Mfg. Co. 91.15 Wm. E. Sullivan Co. 857.45 Tricon Sports Shop 2,172.88 Wolverine Sports Supply 30.30 $13,044.74 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was FOOD SERVICE PAPER SUPPLIES VOTED: that orders be placed with the following companies based on low unit prices meeting specifications in the approximate total for food service paper supplies (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) Approximate Company Item No. Total Bay Colony Paper Co. 1,10,12,17,20, 21,29,31,36,37 $13,144.10 The Dowd Co. 2,11,13,14,16, 18,19,25,27,32, 34,35 5,825.45 Flagstaff Foodservice Co. 23 498.00 Franklin & Perkins Co. ,Inc. 3-6,22,30 2,329.50 G & S Paper Co. 7-9,15,24,28,33 2,541.00 $24,338.05 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was MEDICAL SUPPLIES VOTED: that orders be placed with the Patchogue Surgical Co. , for all items except Items 13,28 and 34 which are rejected as being in the best interest of the Town of Lexington. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) A proposal for inservice credit was presented to the school com- PROPOSALS FOR mittee. After a brief discussion it was agreed that prior to any vote INSERVICE CREDIT the superintendent review the proposal with Counsel Alan Miller regard- ing its implication to the contract. Page 94 June 26, 1980 Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was PERSONNEL CHANGES (CLASSIFIED) VOTED: to approve the Personnel Changes (Classified) . Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) (See Attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was EXTRA DUTY STIPENDS 1977-78 VOTED: to award payment of the extra duty stipends to the personnel listed for the school year 1977-78. (Gaudet, Michelman, Unani- mous) (See Attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was SUMNER WORKSHOP ADDITIONAL STAFF VOTED: to accept the following additional workshop staff. (Michelman, Swanson, Unanimous) (See Attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION REQUES' VOTED: to grant $200 to the Lexington Youth Advisory Commission towards the expenses of operating a job bank for the community during the summer months. (Michelman, Hoffman, Unanimous) (See Attached) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was ABOLISHMENT OF SENIOR TEACHER VOTED: to recommend the abolishment of the positions of senior teacher FRANKLIN SCHOOL at the Franklin School beginning with the school year 1978-79. (Swanson, Hoffman, Unanimous) It was noted that discussions had taken place with elementary school principals relative to equity of resources for each school. It had been agreed to begin to distribute available funds presently being paid to team teaching school staff among the other schools for support services. The superintendent suggested to do this gradually and to avoid placing a burden on any receiving school during the school closing sequence, Esta- brook School would not make the reduction this year. John Modest presented the METCO proposal that was being presented METCO PROPOSAL to the State for the year 1978-79, which according to the new State form- ula could provide Lexington with approximately a $75,000 increase. Mr. Modest said that the budget reflected what he felt was one of fiscal re- sponsibility while providing a quality program. He said the proposal would be negotiable with the State. Upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools it was VOTED: to accept the METCO budget for 1978-79 and present it for review to the State. (Swanson, Gaudet, Unanimous) It was MASC DELEGATE VOTED: to appoint Jean A. Gaudet as the School Committee representative to the Massachusetts Association of School Committees Annual Oc- tober conference, and Patricia Swanson as the alternate. (Michel- man, Hoffman, Unanimous) Page 95 June 26, 1978 Dr. Lawson noted that the School Committee had agreed to return the PARKER SCHOOL Parker School to the town on October 1, 1978. However, the Educational RENTAL Collaborative of Greater Boston was interested in leasing the building as soon as possible, and the superintendent recommended that the school system release to the town the building earlier, if possible, and thus provide the town with extra income on the property. It was so voted. (Swanson, Michelman, Unanimous) It was VOTED: at 11:12 p.m. to adjourn to executive session to discuss collec- tive bargaining matters and the character and reputation of one or more individuals. It was announced that the school committee would not be coming out of executive session. (Michelman, yes; Hoffman, yes; Swanson, yes; Gaudet, yes; Brown, yes) . Respectfully submitted, i4 f ._ �--e— ichard H. Barnes /k Recording Secretary Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 104 New Business PERSONNEL CHANGES - PROFESSIONAL RESIGNATIONS YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON MATERNITY LEAVE LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESCIND YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE. b Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 104-A New Business PERSONNEL CHANGES - PROFESSIONAL PAYMENT OF SPECIAL CLASS STIPENDS 1977-1978 As per agreement between the LEA and Alan Miller, it is recommended that the following persons be granted the Special Class Stipend for 1977-1978. The agreement reached at the negotiations table is that those persons who have in the past received the stipend should do so for 1977-1978 and that only those who qualify under the new definition would be paid from September of 1978 on. The amount to be paid to each of the following persons is $704.00. School Name Senior High YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS PAYMENT OF THE SPECIAL CLASS STIPEND TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED STAFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $704. b Lexington School Committee Meeting - June 26, 1978 Page 104B Personnel Changes To: School Committee Members From: Jack Lawson Subject: Re-Election of Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 104C New Business PERSONNEL CHANGES (Classified) Resignations Effective Transfers Effective Revision of Re-Election List of June 13, 1978 Effective Correction of Hours (Senior High Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 104D New Busine: PERSONNEL CHANGES (Classified) FOOD SERVICES Retirement Effective Transfer Effective YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE, Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26. 1978 Page 104 - Addendum New Business PERSONNEL CHANGES - PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENT: ACTING HOUSEMASTER *Subject to change upon completion of negotiations. YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE. b Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105 New Business RE-ELECTION OF STAFF SECOND ELECTION These people have previously received a contract and are being recommended for their second election. STEP/ GRADE/ SCHOOL NAME LEVEL SUBJECT SALARY* COMMENTS THIRD ELECTION These people have previously received two contracts and are being recommended for their third election. *Subject to change upon completion of negotiations • • YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS THE RE-ELECTION OF THE ABOVE STAFF FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 1978-1979 AT THE STEP AND LEVEL INDICATED. b Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-A New Business SETTING OF SALARIES OF TENURED CERTIFIED STAFF COORDINATORS Name Salary* Stipend " PRINCIPALS (Effective July 1, 1978) Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26 , 1978 Page 105-8 New Business SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-C New Business SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (Continued) Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend . Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-D New Business _. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL (Continued) Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend • Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-E New Business CLARKE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-F New Business DIAMOND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meetin•_ June 26 1978 Pare 105.G New Business MUZZEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26 , 1978 Page 105'-H New Business MULTI SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS Step/ Name Salart Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-I New Business ADAMS SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend • BOWMAN SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary Level Stipend Lexingion School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-J New Business BRIDGE SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend ESTABROOK SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 1057K New Business FISKE SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend FRANKLIN SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary Level Stipend • Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-L New Business HARRINGTON SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend HASTINGS SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary Level Stipend Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-M New Business MUNR01 SCHOOL Step/ Name Salafl* Level Stipend • Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105•N New Business SPECIAL NEEDS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary * Level Stipend DIAMOND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MUZZEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ADAMS SCHOOL BOWMAN SCHOOL BRIDGE SCHOOL Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26 , 1978 Page 105-0 New Business SPECIAL NEEDS (Continued) FISKE SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend HARRINGTON SCHOOL HASTINGS SCHOOL MUNROE SCHOOL SPEECH AND HEARING - MULTI SCHOOL Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-P New Business LIBRARIANS SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend CLARKE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL MUZZEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BOWMAN SCHOOL BRIDGE SCHOOL ESTABROOK SCHOOL FISKE SCHOOL Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26 , 1978 Page 105=Q New Business LIBRARIANS (Continued) FRANKLIN SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary * Level Stipend HARRINGTON SCHOOL HASTINGS SCHOOL MUNROE SCHOOL ) CURRICULUM RESOURSE CENTER ) Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 page 105-R New Business GUIDANCE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend CLARKE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DIAMOND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL • MUZZEY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ADAMS SCHOOL BOWMAN SCHOOL Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105-S New Business GUIDANCE (Continued) BRIDGE SCHOOL Step/ BM& Salary* Level Stipend ESTABROOK SCHOOL FISKE SCHOOL FRANKLIN SCHOOL HARRINGTON SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26 , 1978 Page 105-T New Business CORE EVALUATION TEAM Step/ Name Salary* Level Stipend HEALTH DOCTORS METCO** **Subject to funding. *Subject to change upon completion of negotiations YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS THE SETTING OF SALARIES FOR THE AFORE MENTIONED PERSONNEL AT THE LEVEL, STEP AND SALARY INDICATED FOR THE 1978-1979 SCHOOL YEAR. b Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 105 - Addendu New Business RE-ELECTION OF STAFF CORRECTIONS Please make the following changes re-election of staff pages 105-A through 105-T: From the Agenda of June 13, 1978: ) YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE AS CORRECTED. b Lexington School Committee Meeting June 26, 1978 Page 109 New Business EXTRA DUTY STIPENDS - 1977-1978 School Name Stipend for: Amount YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS PAYMENT OF THE EXTRA DUTY STIPENDS AS INDICATED TO THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONNEL FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 1977-1978. b Lexington School Committee June 26, 1978 Page 110 New Business ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR SUMMER WORKSHOPS Name Workshop Number of Days Salary YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE PERSONNEL June 21, 1W , TOLI9 te,,systo, Dr. John Lawson Superintendent of .Jchooln Lexington School Denartbent Lexington, Dear Dr. Lawson , Last year the Lexington Youth Advisory Commission ran a Program called Hire a Youth which was esnentially a job bank for the comunity . People who needed temporary bele around their bodes or businesses worn able to call the Hire a Youth offfice and get heir. Cvor one hundred Lex- ington young peopie were hired throe:10 thls -program which was funded by eroceede from the Dousethe Dort concert. The Hire a Youth office is open a:aill this summer and we are seriously short of funds to carry it through July and August, ho had honed b have a CLTA emnloyee to man the office but this did not Haterialize. ..ow we have hired a Lexington ntddent to run the broeram and keep the office coon froh 9 us Lilt I thr' !mr.h the sum::er. The total cost of Hire a Youth Du J (-L50. 00 and the board of Selectmen have granted its ; 200.00 tifwardo the exnerses as well as nrovidine the ofDico and beLe hone, As this is a pra:ram willch is °nen to all LexiugLee youth under 21 , we are ashing the :lchnol Departbent fpr '1200.00 to help fund it, The Hire a Youth nro,:,:ram is an extension in sone ways of the job placement proern of the Rioh School ' s Career Center nut it also serves junior hLh and college students. For this reason we have oot applied to tho Career Center for aid. The Youth Co:. mission elana to raino the balance of funds 2u donatio - n pod fund-rats, i::; ovo,ots run by the advisory reue cf otudents. he hope that the :3chool Deprtmoet pill agree with ue ' that this nroexam is on asset to the coneunity and eerits support, • bury oTLicermoty yHooe , c r• Yeeti, Cs, .eLen dory Frances .nelhonnn andaret cot.: Oatelcla Caice.an 4s.mOR,N,40 JCC ;an 4710 .0 "J71-1 ,1fl I 4 1'1 YOUR SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE REQUEST 3: -z•l• • Olt 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02173 • TELEPHONE (617) 562-0500 te.kirfcr