Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-02-SC-min Page 1 January 2, 1979 The Lexington School Committee meeting was held on Tuesday, January 2, 1979, at 8:00 p.m. , at the School Administration Building. Those in atten- dance were: Hoffman, Swanson, Michelman, Gaudet, and student representative Mende. Also present were: Lawson, Maclnnes, Pierson, Monderer, and Barnes. It was MINUTES 12/19/78 VOTED: to accept the minutes of December 19, 1978 as amended. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS VOTED: to accept the following schedule of payments. (Michelman, Gaudet, Unanimous) (See attached sheet.) The second reading of the policy statement regarding child abuse and SECOND READ- neglect was held. It was noted that Town Counsel had reviewed all lan- ING OF PRO- guage of the policy as it pertained to the law, and concerns expressed dur- POSED POLICY- ing the first reading were now satisfactory under the policy and it was CHILD ABUSE scheduled for a third reading at a future meeting. Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PERSONNEL CHANGES - VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (professional) : PROFESSIONAL (Gaudet, Michelman, Unanimous) (See attached sheet.) Upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools, it was PERSONNEL CHANGES - VOTED: to accept the following personnel changes (classified) : (Michel- CLASSIFIED man, Gaudet, Unanimous) (See attached sheet) The resignation of Mr. Kenneth Hoffman from the Lexington School RESIGNATION Committee, effective March 5, 1979, was accepted by the School Committee OF with expressions of regret. The School Committee members complimented MR. HOFFMAN Mr. Hoffman for his dedication and commitment to the Lexington Public Schools. A Progress Report on Instructional Grouping was presented by Geoffrey PROGRESS RE- Pierson. The Progress Report from the Townwide Committee consisted of PORT ON THE eighteen individuals (Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Coordina-, STUDY OF IN- tors, Principals, teachers, and parents) . STRUCTIONAL GROUPING Dr. Pierson commented on the process. - The Report was distributed to each junior high faculty member and as widely among parents as possible. - Each junior high involved parents and staff in an analy- sis of the Report and the development of recommendations. - A Townwide Committee, chaired by Dr. Pierson and composed of parents, teachers, Principals, and Department Heads, developed a draft set of recommendations. He noted that the Committee had attempted to classify the recommenda- tions from faculty and parents into three different categories: Page 2 January 2, 1979 1. Recommendations which assume the continuation of the existing system but sought to improve its operation 2. Recommendations which assume the continuation of the existing system but with substantive changes 3. Recommendations which would provide for instructional grouping through a restructured program Following this process, individual Committee members generated addi- tional recommendations and placed these in the appropriate category. The recommendations from the Committee were as follows: Recommendation A That students be placed in an instructional group in one sub- ject independently of their placement in an instructional group in another subject. Recommendation E That in the junior high school programs in math, foreign lan- guage, social studies, science, and English should be organized to provide for students with outstanding ability and achievement, for a majority of students, and for students needing intensive develop- ment in both skills and concepts. That precise description of skill requirements and course con- tent be developed, to assist the placement and evaluation of students in each of the three levels. Recommendation C That a number of steps be taken to improve the placement of students and the evaluation of that placement: 1. Increased visitations of grade six and seven classroom teachers 2. Improvement in communications between junior high and parents of current sixth graders, prior to the April conference 3. More coherent articulation between sixth and seventh grade curricula 4. Re-assessment of placement by junior high teachers at any time during the year S. Continuation of placement recommendations from sixth grade teachers. Dr. Pierson reviewed the Study Committee' s discussion of each of the recommendations. Mr. Michelman questioned Dr. Pierson as to the per cent of junior high students contemplated in the upper level. Dr. Pierson responded that the present estimate was approximately twenty-six per cent to thirty per cent of junior high school students in the upper group, but a more accurate as- sessment based on ability should reduce the range to ten to eighteen per cent. Mr. Michelman voiced concern that attention be given to the concept of "Des- tiny tracking" to assure that the problem would not be significant under the Page 3 January 2, 1979 new plan. Dr. Pierson responded that the new plan should assist in reduc- ing the problem. Dr. Pierson noted that in mathematics, "destiny" is deter- mined for grade 8 students, and stated that their "destiny" could probably be postponed until grade 9 under the new recommendation. Mr. Hoffman stated a concern that a quantitative analysis was needed to determine how large a student population was needed to realize various segments of the proposed plan. He noted that a small number of students would limit the number of options available. Dr. Pierson said that question had been discussed with the Superintendent and all were aware of the problem. Mr. Hoffman added that the consolidation of low levels was due to the stigma students and parents attached to placement and was one of the phenomenon that led to the Grouping Ability Report. Dr. Pierson agreed with Mr. Hoffman's remark. The Superintendent stated there was a need for parental involvement in the Grouping Ability process. Mrs. Swanson suggested a focus on a pro- gram of understanding of the process for parents so that parents might better understand their involvement and implications of placements. Mr. Michelman said the focus of the study's recommendation was to try to minimize the change of students being shut out of options. Dr. Pierson said the interpretation was correct. Mrs. Gaudet asked if three groups were in op- eration, as stated under Recommendation A, would it be possible to distribute teachers to specific groups of students? She added some teachers seemed to be better or more oriented in teaching certain types of students. Dr. Pierson responded he was not sure that the process would specifically guarantee it and noted the possibility existed in the present system but did not always become a reality. He said the best answer probably could be obtained from junior high principals. The Superintendent noted at this point that he and Dr. Pierson would meet with junior high school faculties to solicit reactions to the Committee's re- port, and would also retrieve reactions from Principals, Department Heads, staff, and parents. In summation, Dr. Pierson said if accepted by the Superintendent and the School Committee, plans for implementation of recommendations would be developed in February and March by appropriate groups with implementation beginning in the last part of the 1979 school year. The School Committee thanked Dr. Pierson for the clear, concise progress report. The Superintendent presented a plan developed by a committee which con- sisted of Geoffrey Pierson, Jack Monderer, Frank DiGiamraarino, Dick Barnes, and him. He noted the Massachusetts State Board of Education had established a policy which stated that each public school district shall: - establish and evaluate minimum standards in the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics by September 1, 1980 - establish and evaluate minimum standards in the basic skills of listening and speaking by September 1, 1981 - provide for participation in the development and periodic review Page 4 January 2, 1979 of its basic skills improvement plan. Participants shall include teachers, administrators, parents, general public, and employers. At the secondary level, participants shall include secondary stu- dents. He recommended to the School Committee that six committees (steering committee and five subject-area committees) be established. School Committee members suggested an increased number of parents and teachers on the steer- ing committee. Aater a review of the committee charges and time line for de- velopment, the Committee accepted the plan. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND CHARGES Steering Committee Membership: The Steering Committee membership will be composed of the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Director of Pupil Services, Coordinator of Planning, Budgeting and Research, two citizens, two parents, an em- ployer, three principals (one from each level) , three teachers, one Co- ordinator or Department Head, and the Superintendent of Schools (ex of- ficio member). Charge: The Lexington Basic Skills Improvement Program Steering Committee, is charged with the following in an effort to recommend in writing a cohesive and comprehensive program designed to assist all Lexington students to achieve mastery of basic skills prior to high school gradu- ation: - To organize the human resources reservoir to carry out the charge - To plan required events and activities which will meet Lex- ington and State standards - To review and monitor the work of sub-committees in the de- velopment of the Lexington Basic Skills Improvement Program Specifically, the Committee's recommendation should include plans for testing, remediation, scoring, reporting, orienta- tion, time line, and budgeting. In carrying out this charge, the Committee will establish working committees in reading, mathematics, writing, listen- ing, and speaking. Subject Matter Skills Improvement Committees (Reading, Mathematics, Writing, Listening, Speaking) Membership: Each committee will be sub-divided into two sub-committees (one elementary, one secondary) . Each will contain members as follows: two program managers, two parents, two citizens, three teachers, two special needs staff, two principals, two specialists. Page 5 January 2, 1979 Charge: Each of the subject matter committees is charged with the responsi- - bility of developing a set of recommendations for the steering commit- tee which provide the detail to evolve a mastery of basic skills pro- grams in their curriculum areas. Such detail shall include but is not limited to decisions on testing, scoring, remediation, reporting, orien- tation, time line, and budgeting. The Superintendent noted that secondary students would have input, also. A meeting would be scheduled with the S.A.B. to determine how best to include students. State auditors completed an audit of ED-MA-77-54B. The auditor's AUDIT REPORT findings were accepted by the Department of Education, Bureau of Audit SPECIAL ED and Project #ED-MA-77-54B ($18,000) had an unexpended balance of $90.93 P.L. 89-313 which must be returned to the State. All other expenditures were noted to be in conformity with Federal regulations. Mr. Barnes presented the second draft of a Students Rights, Rules STUDENTS and Regulations Handbook that had been developed during the past year RIGHTS, RULE in consultation with parent/teacher associations, coimuittees consisting & REGULATION of administrators and staff and the Student Advisory Committee. The HANDBOOK document was reviewed and comments made by the student representative to the School Committee and School Committee members. Suggestions for changes and additions were made. Mr. Barnes noted that he would be in contact with Town Counsel for review of the document. He added that the Student Advisory Committee and he would meet for a final review. The final draft would be presented to the School Committee at a future meeting. It was announced that Mr. Belostock, Adams P.T.A. President, had re- ADAMS P.T.A. quested a meeting with the School Committee on the evening of January 31, MEETING regarding the school closing. It was announced that the School Committee would contact Mr. Belostock for a mutually convenient time. It was VOTED: to adjourn at 10:38 p.m. (Gaudet, Michelman, Unanimous) Respectfully submitted, ,Z4i G- zt /7-.<2.-42;-‘-e -All-chard H. Barnes Recording Secretary /c SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS The following schedules of payments were available for scrutiny and approval prior to this meeting: SCHOOL DEPARTMENT BUDGETS Personal Services December 22, 1978 Classified Payroll #14 C $98,064.58 December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll #12 473,249.30 Expenses December 22, 1978 Bill Schedules #111 1,491.44 December 22, 1978 #1) 2 5,154.43 December, 22, 1978 x;113 8,452.95 December 22, 1978 #114 23,059.94 December 22, 1978 #115 900,47 December 22, 1978 #1)6 252.00 December 22, 1978 41117 371.46 December 22, 1978 #118 12,093.45 December 29, 1978 #119 2,712.85 December 29, 1978 #120 2,589.73 December 29, 1978 #121 10,923.16 December 29, 1978 #122 2,349.65 December 29, 1978 #123 338.10 Expenses (Carryover) December 29, 1978 Bill Schedule #236 568.22 SPECIAL PROGRAMS Non-Lexington Funds Adult Education December 22, 1978 Classified Payroll 43.73 December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll 726:02 December 22, 1978 Bin Schedule #3 15 0J Driver Education December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll 1,215.73 December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #3 226.27 Metco Program December 22, 1978 Classified Payroll 1,643.46 December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll 6,420.0e_ December 22, 1978 Bill Schedules #4 14,192.75 December 29, 1978 ;`3 636.29 Transition to Employment December 22, 1978 Classified Payroll #8 C 89.28 December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll 1,535.57 PL 89-313 Special Education December 15, 1978 Professional Payroll 464.26 (Over) ESEA Library December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #3 2,109.02 Video Taping Grant December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #1 109.58 Transition to Employment December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #5 57.51 Pupil-School Material Recovery December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #1 786.53 Project Discover Grant December 22, 1978 Bill Schedule #1 18.00 PERSONNEL CHANGES (Classified) FOOD SERVICES Change of Hours Effective New Employees Effective PERSONNEL. CHANGES - PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENT RESIGNATION 0 YRS. IN LEXINGTON EFFECTIVE REASON ) RETIREMENT (Over)